The Speech Act of Complaint in English and in Russian and Its Emergence in The Pragmatic Competence of Adult American Learners of Russian

1
The Speech Act of Complaint in English and in Russian and its Emergence
in the Pragmatic Competence of Adult American Learners of Russian
by
Beata Moskala-Gallaher
December, 2011
Submitted to the Faculty of Bryn Mawr College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

UMI Number: 3504371
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3504371
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
2
Abstract
This study compares the performance and perception of the speech act of
complaints by American native speakers of English (ASs), Russian native speakers
(RSs), and American learners of Russian as a second language (L2). The primary goals of
this study are to establish a baseline of performing the speech act of direct complaint by
native speakers of American English and Russian in order to investigate the L2 learners
perception and performance of direct complaints. Within a framework of cross-cultural
and interlanguage pragmatics, the dissertation identifies some of the key linguistic and
cultural differences which can hamper effective communication between Americans and
Russians and between L2 learners and RSs in complaint situations.
The data were elicited through a combination of oral open-ended discourse
completion questionnaires (DCQ) and an assessment questionnaire. There were 30 ASs,
30 RSs, and 37 L2 learners at the advanced and intermediate levels included in the cross-
cultural and interlanguage analyses. The degree of directness in complaints was analyzed
based on a coding system developed in the Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project
(1989) with Trosborgs (1995) modifications for complaints, as well as Owens (2001)
modification for directness in requests in Russian.
The interlanguage analysis in the present study shows that RSs and L2 learners
made different choices in their complaints at the structural and linguistic (directness)
levels in terms of socio-cultural constraints. L2 learners approximated strategy selection
of American speakers, which showed the influence of transfer from their L1 at the
sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels. However, L2 learners also used strategies
that were closer to the behavior of RSs than to ASs, which could have been triggered by
3
their everyday-life interactions with native speakers. The study demonstrates that L2
learners at both proficiency levels had difficulties adjusting their strategy selection and
their degree of directness (politeness) to the parameters of social distance and social
power. However, the advanced learners showed better control over linguistic strategies to
mitigate the offense; thus, they more effectively negotiated a problem than the
intermediate learners. The findings suggest that new curricula designed to increase
learners cross-cultural awareness and pragmatic competence will help L2 learners to
avoid pragmatic failures and become more efficient communicators with native speakers
in everyday-life situations.
4
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dan Davidson, my academic
advisor, for his guidance, support and advice, which greatly contributed to my research. I
am indebted to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Bryn Mawr College for their
continued assistance throughout my time in graduate school. I am very grateful to the
faculty and staff at Bryn Mawr College for their warm support over the years. I would
like to express my special gratitude to the ACTR staff members and resident directors in
St. Petersburg, Moscow and Vladimir who helped me to carry out my project with ACTR
students in Russia. I am very grateful to Prof. Irina Pavlovna Lysakova who helped me to
conduct my research at Herzen State Pedagogical University in St. Petersburg, Russia. I
would like to express a debt of gratitude to Dr. Randall Rieger of West Chester
University, Institute of Statistics, and his assistant, Sathiya Kumar, for their advice and
technical assistance with the statistical data presented in Chapter 4 of this study. I would
like to express my gratitude to the members of the defense committee for their valuable
comments and suggestions. I would like to thank Irina Dubinina for her attentive
proofreading of the scenarios in Russian, and Mary Zaborskis and Betty Litsinger for
their proofreading in English. I also would like to thank Anna Petrova and Maria
Jeremenko for evaluating the learners data. My special thanks go to my Polish and
American families for their constant encouragement, and my friends from Bryn Mawr
College and Swarthmore College for their support and good humor. My special gratitude
goes to my husband for his encouragement and help.

5
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 12
1.1.Pragmatic Competence: A Speech Act of Complaint 12
1.2. Purpose of This Study: Research Questions 15
1.3.Assumptions 16
1.4. Definition of Terms 17
1.4.1 Pragmatics 17
1.4.2. Pragmalinguistics versus Sociopragmatics 18
1.4.3. Speech Acts 18
1.4.4. Direct versus Indirect Speech Acts 19
1.4.5. Politeness Theory 19
1.4.6. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics 20
1.4.7. Interlanguage Pragmatics and Language Transfer 20
1.5. Limitations of This Study 21
1.6. Significance of This Study 22
1.6.1. Contributing to the Field of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Pragmatics 22
1.6.2. Establishing the Taxonomy of the Speech Act Set of Direct
Complaint in Russian 24
1.6.3. Comparing Native and Non-Native Performance of Direct Complaint 25
1.6.4. Pedagogical Implications 25
Chapter 2: The Literature Review 27
2.1. Chapter Overview 27
2.2. Pragmatics: Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics 27

6
2.3. Speech Acts 30
2.3.1. Indirect Speech Acts 32
2.3.2. Culture-Specific Characteristics of Speech Acts 35
2.4. Politeness Theory 38
2.4.1. Counterevidence to the Universality of the Politeness Theory 42
2.5. Pragmatic Competence vs. Pragmatic Failure 47
2.6. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics 49
2.7. Interlanguage Pragmatics and Pragmatic Transfer 51
2.8. The Speech Act of Complaint 53
2.8.1. Classification of Complaints 54
2.8.2. Defining Complaints 55
2.8.2.1. Direct Complaints 58
2.8.2.2. Indirect Complaints 58
2.8.3. The Speech Act Set of Direct Complaints 60
2.8.3.1. Realization Patterns of Direct Complaints based on the Severity of Complaint
61
2.9. Empirical Studies on Direct Complaints 63
2.9.1. Previous Cross-Cultural Studies on Direct Complaints 63
2.9.2. Interlanguage Studies on Direct Complaints 65
2.10. Conclusion 71
Chapter 3: Methodology and Data Collection 73
3.2. Data Collection Methods in Speech Acts Studies 73

7
3.3. Study Design 80
3.3.1. Participant Profile 80
3.3.2. Elicitation of the Data 83
3.3.2.1. Oral Discourse Completion Questionnaire 83
3.3.2.2. Assessment Questionnaire 90
3.3.3. Additional Evaluation of Learners Complaints 90
3.4. Transcription of the Data 90
3.4.1. Transcription Procedures 90
3.4.2. Marking Learner Errors 92
3.5. Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Analyses of the Data 93
3.6. Coding System 94
3.6.1. Coding System and Taxonomy of Directness Established in the CCSARP 94
3.6.2. Taxonomy of Direct Complaints of American Speakers of English and Russian
Native Speakers 97
3.6.3. Taxonomy of Directness in Studies on Complaints. Modifications to the Taxonomy
of Directness in the Present Study 103
3.6.4. Directness Level in the Category of Remedy in Russian Native and Non-Native
Data 113
3.6.4.1. Directness in Native and Non-Native Remedy Strategies in Russian. Owens
(2001) Taxonomy of Directness in Russian Requests. Modifications for the Present Study
113
3.6.5. Analysis of Complaints at the Discourse Level. Intensification and Mitigation
Strategies in the Head Act 115

8
3.7. Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage
Complaints 119
3.8.Hypotheses for the Interlanguage Investigation 120
Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion of the Data 123
4.2. Cross-Cultural Analysis of Complaints 123
4.2.1. Differences in the Taxonomy of Direct Complaints between American Speakers,
Russian Native Speakers, and L2 Learners. 123
4.2.1.1. Prototypical Taxonomy of Direct Complaints for American and Russian
Speakers. Structural Patterns of Learners Complaints 124
4.2.1.2. Structural Patterns of Direct Complaints among all Language Groups for
Individual Situations 127
4.2.2. Qualitative Analysis of Complaints: Cultural Values and Social Norms reflected in
Complaints of ASs and RSs. Learners Performance of Complaints 148
4.2.2.1. Analysis of Opt-Out Situations 149
4.2.2.2. Analysis of Supportive Moves 157
4.2.2.2.1. Effect of Situation on Supportive Moves. Cultural Values Reflected in
Complaints 157
4.2.2.2.2. Concept of Politeness in American and Russian Cultures 171
4.2.2.2.3. The Role of Diminutives and Address Forms in Complaints 174
4.2.2.4. The Role of Order of Semantic Categories 182
4.2.2.2.5. Conclusions to the Qualitative Analysis 185
4.3. Interlanguage Analysis 189

9
4.3.1. Differences between L2 Learners and RSs based on Off-Record Strategies by
Considering Social Distance and Social Power 190
4.3.1.2. Effect of Gender on Off -Record Strategies by Considering Social Distance and
Social Power 191
4.3.1.3. Differences between L2 Learners and RSs based On-Record Strategies by
Considering Social Distance and Social Power 192
4.3.1.4. Effect of Gender on On-Record Strategies by Considering Social Distance and
Social Power 193
4.3.1.5. Differences between Groups and Genders based on the Subcategories of On-
Record Strategies 194
4.3.1.6. Perception of Severity of Offense by Group and Gender 196
4.3.1.6.1. Differences between Groups and Genders based on Off-record Strategies and
Severity of Offense 197
4.3.1.6.2. Differences between Groups and Genders based on On-record
Strategies and Severity of Offense 198
4.3.2. Differences in the Level of Directness in Remedy 199
4.3.2.1. Effect of Gender on Directness Level in Remedy 201
4.3.2.2. Differences between Groups based on the Subcategories of Direct
and Indirect Requests 201
4.3.2.3. Differences in Directness Level in Request related to Severity
of Offense 203
4.4. Differences between Groups and Genders based on the Number of Words
and Moves 205

10
4.4.1. Differences in the Number of Words and Moves related to
Severity of Offense 211
4.4.1.1. Differences between Groups and Genders based on the
Number of Words 211
4.4.1.2. Differences between Groups and Genders based on the
Number of Moves 213
4.5. Differences in the Frequency of Upgraders and Downgraders for Groups and
Genders 216
4.5.1. Frequency of Upgraders related to Social Distance and Social Power 216
4.5.2. Frequency of Downgraders related to Social Distance and Social Power 219
4.5.3. Frequency of Upgraders and Downgraders related to Severity of Offense 220
4.5.4. Differences between Groups based on the Subcategories of Upgraders and
Downgraders 222
4.6. Effect of Proficiency Level on Complaints 224
4.6.1. Differences between Intermediate and Advanced Learners based on the Usage of
Off- and On-Record Strategies 225
4.6.2. Differences among Learners based on the Sub-Categories of
On-Record Strategies 228
4.6.3. The Perception of Severity of Offense by Groups and Genders 229
4.6.4. Directness Level in Remedy 230
4.6.5. Differences between Intermediate and Advanced Learners based on The Number of
Words and Moves 235
4.6.5.1. The Number of Words 235

11
4.6.5.2. The Number of Moves 239
4.6.6. The Frequency of Upgraders and Downgraders 242
4.7. Interlanguage Features of Complaints. Summary of the Main Findings with
Reference to the Hypotheses 245
Chapter 5. Conclusions 254
5.2. The Taxonomy of Speech Act Set of Direct Complaints of ASs and RSs. L2
Learners Transfer of Structural Patterns of Complaints 254
5.3. Gender Differences within Culture and across Cultures. Gender Differences in the
Learners Group 256
5.4. Russian Native- and Non-Native Performance of Complaints 257
5.4.1. Main Differences between L2 Learners and RSs at the Linguistic, Strategic, and
Discourse Levels 257
5.4.2. Differences between Groups based on the Number of Words and Moves 261
5.4.3. Effect of Gender on Complaints 262
5.4.4. Effect of Proficiency Level on Complaints 263
5.5. Pedagogical Implications 264
5.5.1. Teaching Pragmatics. Curriculum Design 264
5.5.2. Suggestions for Classroom Intervention 265
5.6. Suggestions for Future Research 275
References 277
Appendices 289
12
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Pragmatic Competence: A Speech Act of Complaint
In their communication with native speakers, learners of foreign language
(FL)/second language (L2) who have acquired lexicon and grammar (phonology,
morphology, and syntax), may still not be able to effectively communicate in the target
language. Grammatically competent learners may have difficulties conveying an intended
message in the target language speakers community. They may unintentionally sound
impolite and even aggressive because they lack pragmatic competence, which Thomas
(1983) has defined as the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a
specific purpose and to understand language in context (p. 92), which can lead to
misunderstandings with native speakers in social interactions.
Learners pragmatic inappropriateness can negatively affect their communication
with native speakers when they perform communicative acts of greeting, apologizing,
making a request, giving a compliment, thanking, refusing, or complaining. Successful
realization of these speech acts is crucial for social interactions within one culture and
across cultures while deviations from nativelike performance of the speech acts may lead
to communication breakdown between native and non-native speakers.
While performing a speech act within the same culture, speakers employ
different linguistic strategies in order to sound polite by carrying out a communicative act
without any friction (Lakoff, 1973). However, linguistic strategies that speakers use in
one culture to perform a speech act may not necessarily be associated with politeness in
another culture. As Blum-Kulka (1997) has pointed out, [W]hereas indirectness is the
13
accepted polite behavior in a given situation in one culture, directness is the norm in the
same situation in another culture (p. 54).
Polite behavior in one culture may be perceived by speakers in another culture as
rude and even aggressive due to different linguistic strategies, which reflect different
sociocultural values across cultures. A different perception of politeness can cause a clash
of cultures, which Eva Hoffman (who immigrated with her Polish-Jewish parents to
America when she was a teenager) has described in the following way:
I learn also that certain kinds of truth are impolite. One shouldnt criticize the
person one is with, at least not directly. You shouldnt say You are wrong about
that- though you may say, On the other hand, there is that to consider. You
shouldnt say, This doesnt look good on you, though you may say, I like you
better in that other outfit. I learn to tone down my sharpness, to do a more careful
conversational minuet. (1998, p. 146)
Hoffmans recollections reveal that linguistic politeness encodes cultural values and
social norms, which, in turn, reflect expectations and obligations toward other members
of the same language community.
L2 learners are not always aware of cultural differences that affect the selection of
politeness strategies in the target language. They may perceive linguistic strategies that
express politeness as universal, which can lead to their miscommunication with native
speakers. As a result, L2 learners may transfer their politeness norms from their L1 to the
target language while performing speech acts, which may cause their pragmatic failure in
the target language speakers community. It is apparent that L2 learners need to better
14
understand politeness rules in the target language so that they can successfully
communicate with native speakers.
The present study investigates the speech act of direct complaint, which is usually
associated with dissatisfaction, frustration, unpleasant experiences, and losing face.
Execution of direct complaint is a challenging act even for native speakers in their own
culture because complainers impose their bad feelings upon the interlocutors by blaming
them for their dissatisfaction, for example, You broke my coffee mug! To avoid damaging
the relationship with the interlocutor, the speakers may use various linguistic strategies
that can mitigate the impact of the complaint.
This study compares complaint strategies at linguistic, structural, and discursive
levels, which American speakers of English, native speakers of Russian and American
learners of Russian employed in comparable complaint situations. This investigation will
provide a valuable insight into the perception and performance of this face-threatening
act by native and non-native speakers (Brown & Levinson, 1987). The study will offer
some recommendations for classroom intervention that can help American L2 learners of
Russian to learn how to negotiate relationships with Russian speakers in a complaint
situation by making appropriate linguistic choices in different social contexts in the target
language. This empirical study should provide a research base for new curricula designed
to increase learners cross-cultural awareness and their pragmatic competence, which will
enable them to successfully communicate with native speakers. Moreover, this study
should clarify some of the key linguistic and cultural differences which can hamper
effective communication between Americans and Russians. The acquisition of linguistic
and sociocultural knowledge should help learners to avoid pragmatic failures and
15
misconceptions about the other culture, which are essential for effective communication
in everyday life.
1.2. Purpose of This Study: Research Questions
This cross-cultural study compares the performance and perception of the speech
act of direct complaint by American speakers of English, native Russian speakers, and
American learners of Russian as a second language. The primary goals of this study are
to establish a baseline of performing a speech act of direct complaints by native speakers
of American English and of Russian and then to investigate the perception and
performance of direct complaint by American learners of Russian. Within a framework of
cross-cultural pragmatics, the dissertation identifies universal features as well as
language- and culture-specific characteristics of direct complaints as performed by native
speakers and non-native speakers in complaint situations.
This study aims to answer the following questions: 1) What strategies constitute a
prototypical speech act set of direct complaint of American native speakers of English
and of native speakers of Russian? 2) To what extent do American speakers, Russian
speakers, and American learners of Russian as a second language (L2) differ in their
performances of complaints in terms of linguistic politeness strategies (directness) and
structural patterns of the speech act set of direct complaint? 3) Do American speakers,
Russian speakers, and American L2 learners of Russian differ in their assessment of
social power and social distance (context-external factors) and severity of offense
(context-internal factor) in a complaint situation? 4) Does gender affect the structural and
linguistic choices of American speakers, Russian speakers, and American L2 learners of

16
Russian? Are similar preferences observed cross-culturally? 5) What correlation exists
between culture-specific values and the perception and performances of direct complaint
by American learners of Russian? 6) Do American learners of Russian at the advanced
proficiency level1 use more native-like structures than learners at the intermediate level?
7) To what extent do the strategies and linguistic choices made by American learners of
Russian reveal their first language (L1) transfer of sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic
norms, and to what extent do they reflect target-language norms?
1.3. Assumptions
This cross-cultural study is based on the assumption that American and Russian
speakers will perform and perceive direct complaints differently due to language norms
and culture-specific values relative to social constraints, which, in turn, will affect the
complaint behavior of American learners of Russian. Drawing on previous studies on
speech acts in the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics, this study assumes
that American and Russian speakers in complaint situations will differ in their choice of
linguistic forms expressing politeness, structural patterns, and discursive style. The study
also assumes that gender of the interlocutors will affect linguistic and strategic choices
that speakers make in all three language groups. Moreover, based on the existing research
in pragmatics (e.g., Owen, 2001; Shardakova, 2009), the researcher supposes that
American learners of Russian at the advanced proficiency level will more closely
1
The learners proficiency level was determined in the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) in accordance to
the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines established in 1986 and revised in 1999. In the present study, the
intermediate group encompasses learners at the levels 1 and 1+, while the advanced group consists of
learners at the levels 2- and 2, with two learners at the level 2+.
17
approach nativelike strategies and linguistic structures expressing politeness in their
complaints than the intermediate learners.
Furthermore, this work suggests that direct complaints, although commonly perceived
by speakers as a confrontational act, should be recognized by L2 learners as a means that
may facilitate negotiations between learners and native speakers in social interactions
(Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993; Murthy & Neu, 1996). Therefore, direct complaints should
be included in the classroom material so that American L2 learners of Russian can learn
how to successfully negotiate relationships with Russian native speakers.
1.4. Definition of Terms
1.4.1. Pragmatics.
Pragmatics examines how speakers use language to achieve communicative goals
in a context. Scholars in the field of pragmatics do not focus on the grammatical or
lexical forms that the speakers employ in a certain context, but they go behind the literal
interpretation of the linguistic forms in order to understand the intended meaning(s) that
the speakers express in an utterance. In a situation where a mother, the speaker, says in
the presence of her teenage daughter, the hearer, The dishes have not been washed again,
pragmatics examines what message the speaker intended to convey: Does the mother
express a complaint toward her daughter because of the dirty dishes? Is she reprimanding
her daughter? Or is she making an indirect request? It follows that pragmatics
investigates linguistic choices that the speakers make to convey an intended meaning in a
context.
18
1.4.2. Pragmalinguistics versus sociopragmatics.
Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) divided pragmatics into pragmalinguistics and
sociopragmatics. According to Leech, pragmalinguistics refers to the linguistic features
of pragmatics and describes the linguistic strategies and forms through which a
communicative act can be conveyed in a given language. Sociopragmatics, on the other
hand, is the socio-logical interface of pragmatics, which refers to social conditions in
which interlocutors perform a communicative act (Leech, 1983, p. 10). Social distance,
relative social power, degree of imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and rights and
obligations in a culture (Thomas, 1983) determine the social conditions that govern the
language use. Therefore, scholars have perceived sociopragmatics as culture-specific and
pragmalinguistics as language-specific.
1.4.3. Speech acts.
Scholars have defined speech acts as functional unit[s] in communication
(Cohen, 1996, p. 388). Studies on speech acts have investigated how speakers perform
certain communicative functions such as greeting, apologizing, making a request or
giving a compliment, thanking, refusing, or complaining. John L. Austin developed the
study of speech acts in the 1970s, and he distinguished three types of acts: the
locutionary, the illocutionary, and the perlocutionary (1962, p. 102). A locutionary act
stands for what is actually said, for example, She is a student. An illocutionary act has a
performing function, and expresses what the speaker does through an utterance (pp. 99-
100). For example, by saying, !, You are late again/informal, a
Russian speaker performs the act of complaining. An illocutionary act can cause the
19
hearers or the speakers reaction, which is called a perlocutionary act (p. 102). In the
situation above, the hearer may react by saying, , I wont do (this)
anymore, which exemplifies a perlocutionary act.
1.4.4. Direct versus indirect speech acts.
Speech acts can be further subdivided into direct and indirect, which are
determined by linguistic means (grammatical or lexical structures, intonation, syntax,
idioms, etc.) that the speakers employ to perform a communicative act. In American
culture, directness is associated with the imperative form while indirectness with an
interrogative. American speakers annoyed by loud music can ask the listener to turn it
down by using a direct form with the politeness marker please, Please turn down the
music, or they can choose an indirect form, Could you turn down the music, please? In
other words, directness refers to linguistic structures that match an intended
communicative function, for example, the imperative conveys an order, while
indirectness refers to linguistic structures that on the surface do not express an intended
speech act, for example, using a question to make a request.
1.4.5. Politeness theory.
Lakoff (1973), Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson (1987) did early research
on politeness, and their theories have served as a theoretical framework for most research
in contemporary pragmatics. This study adopts Brown and Levinsons concept of
politeness because their theory, despite the criticism it has received, allows a cross-
cultural comparison of the politeness phenomenon.
Brown and Levinson based their theory of politeness on the principle of face, a
public image people create of themselves in the society that they want to maintain in
20
social interactions (1987). Thus, politeness can be seen as a desire to protect self-
images (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 61). According to Brown and Levinsons
politeness theory, interlocutors mutually respect each others face in a social interaction
in order to successfully communicate. However, performance of some speech acts can
affect the speakers and/or the hearers face; therefore, they identified these speech acts
as face-threatening acts (p. 65), for example, complaint or request.
1.4.6. Cross-cultural pragmatics.
As a research field,2 cross-cultural pragmatics investigates how people in different
languages and cultures perform and perceive speech acts (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper,
1989). Research often has focused on universality and culture-specific features of speech
acts and linguistic politeness strategies that native and non-native speakers employ in
speech act realization. Research in cross-cultural pragmatics has utilized the theoretical
framework that Blum-Kulka and House and Kasper (1989) developed in the Cross-
Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), in which they investigated native
and non-native performance of requests and apologies in seven languages or their
varieties. The taxonomy and coding system established in this project will also inform the
methodology of this study.
1.4.7. Interlanguage pragmatics and language transfer.
Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), a field of second language acquisition, studies
how non-native speakers (NNS) understand and carry out linguistic action in a target
language, and how they acquire L2 pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992, p. 203). Using
2
The present study is grounded in cross-cultural and not intercultural pragmatics because the data was
elicited independently from speakers from two cultures, American and Russian, while in the framework of
intercultural pragmatics the data is obtained when people from different cultures interact with each other
(Spencer-Oatey, 2000, p. 4; Kecskes, 2004, pp. 1-2). Research shows that the terms cross-cultural and
intercultural pragmatics are also used interchangeably.
21
Austins formulation, Kasper (1998) described ILP as an investigation of how non-native
speakers do things with words in a second language. Moreover, learners may
incorporate elements from their L1 into their interlanguage system, which is known as
transfer. Linguists have distinguished between positive transfer, which results from
similarities between the L1 and the target language, and negative transfer, which is
caused by differences between native and non-native language norms.
1.5. Limitations of This Study
The design of the present study required detailed and carefully documented responses
to each of the 12 situations featuring complaints. The number of available participants in
each group was necessarily limited to 30 participants in the group of American and
Russian speakers and to 37 in the learners group. For that reason, further research is
needed to confirm the results of the current study. Moreover, while all samples were
collected under uniform conditions, the environment was not a natural one, but an
academic setting, in which participants were asked to react orally and spontaneously to
situations that should trigger direct complaints. These rather hypothetical situations may
have affected their responses and linguistic behavior although the complaint scenarios
were carefully selected, given that they frequently occur in everyday life, and the
participants could have easily identified themselves with these situations without great
effort. Furthermore, some participants noted that they may have altered their natural
responses to a complaint because they were strongly aware that their words were being
recorded. In sum, the academic setting and the method of eliciting data may have affected
both the quantity and quality of participants responses.

22
1.6. Significance of This Study
1.6.1. Contributing to the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage

pragmatics.
This work was triggered by the need for empirical study on direct complaints of
Russian speakers and L2 learners of Russian. The speech act of complaint is the least
researched speech act in the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics. There is
a scarcity of empirical studies on complaint behavior of Russian and American speakers,
and, to my best knowledge, there is no systematic empirical investigation on direct
complaints of American learners of Russian. This study attempts to close this gap by first
providing an investigation of empirical data of American and Russian native speakers
direct complains and then by comparing L1 and L2 complaint behavior in Russian. Thus,
this study contributes to the field of cross-cultural pragmatics and second language
acquisition (SLA), particularly to acquisition of Russian as a second language.
Traditionally, Russian linguists have investigated speech acts in the Russian-
language literature in the framework of functional-communicative grammar by focusing
on communicative norms and functions of contemporary colloquial Russian and of
literary texts (Zemskaja & Schmelev, 1993; Zolotova et al., 1998; Zolotova, 2001).
Moreover, Russian scholars have provided descriptive characteristics of the
communicative acts by analyzing them in the context of speech etiquette and politeness
(Akishina & Formanovskaja, 1978; Formanovskaja, 1982, 1989; Formanovskaja &
Shevtsova, 1992; Bulygina & Shmelev, 1997). However, they have not examined them
with reference to issues discussed in the field of pragmatics, such as directness versus
indirectness or structural patterns of the speech act set. Moreover, Russian linguists have
not provided any systematic analyses of the speech act set based on empirical data.
23
However, the most recent contribution concerning speech acts in the Russian-
language literature differs from the traditional approach of Russian linguists. Larina
(2009), a Russian scholar, provided valuable insights into speech acts realization in
Russian and English by relying on empirical data and personal observations. Larina
(2009) conducted a detailed analysis of speech acts performance in Russian and English
(with some commentaries about direct complaints, which she refers to as admonition,
rebuke, reprimand in English and , , , in
Russian; pp. 287-295) by focusing on linguistic politeness and cultural values in both
languages. Her study appears to be one of the most comprehensive cross-cultural
analyses of speech act realization in English and Russian in the Russian-language
literature.
Wierzbicka, a bilingual (Polish-English) scholar, has done extensive research on
speech acts across cultures. She compared different languages and cultures, including,
among others, Russian and Anglo-Saxon cultures. While writing mostly in English,
Wierzbicka based her research on linguistic and sociocultural knowledge and everyday
observations by focusing on the semantic and pragmatic nature of languages; however,
she did not refer to any empirical data.
In the English-language literature, there is a growing body of empirical studies of
speech acts in Russian, yet empirical studies on complaints remain scant. In the past
decade, there have been several empirical studies conducted on interlanguage pragmatics
of request (Owen, 2001; Frank, 2002) and on apology (Shardakova, 2009). In the field of
cross-cultural pragmatics, Ogiermann (2009a) examined requests of English, German,
Polish, and Russian speakers and apologies of English, Polish, and Russian speakers
24
(2009b). Kozlova (2004) investigated how American and Russian speakers perform a
speech act of indirect complaint. Gershenson (2003) investigated direct complaints of
Israelis, Russians and Russian immigrants to Israel by focusing on the interlanguage of
the Russian immigrants. Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) examined cultural and ethnic
values in complaint behavior by drawing on a study that Hauser and Swindler (1988)
conducted on direct complaints of Russian and Moroccan immigrants to Israel. However,
the current research on complaint behavior does not provide any systematic classification
of the speech act set of direct complaint of either Russian native speakers or American
learners of Russian.
Given the limited research on the speech act of direct complaint in Russian, the
present study will greatly contribute to the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage
pragmatics by offering a systematic analysis of empirical data on the speech act of direct
complaint as performed by Russian native speakers and American L2 learners of
Russian.
1.6.2. Establishing the taxonomy of the speech act set of direct complaint in
Russian.
This study investigates the linguistic repertoire of Russian native speakers in a
complaint situation by focusing on linguistic politeness strategies (direct vs. indirect
strategies) and structural patterns of the speech act of direct complaint. The development
of the taxonomy of the speech act set of direct complaint in Russian and the analysis of
linguistic choices that Russian native speakers made offer valuable insights into the field
of cross-cultural pragmatics. The investigation enables an assessment of linguistic norms,
social constraints and cultural values in complaints of Russian native speakers.

25
Moreover, it is essential to obtain the empirical data from American speakers in
order to establish the taxonomy of the speech act set of direct complaint of American
speakers and to compare it to existing classifications from previous studies.
1.6.3. Comparing native and non-native performance of direct complaint.
The present study employs a modified taxonomy of directness, which Owen
(2001) developed in her research on request in Russian in order to assess directness in
Russian data. The examination of direct complaints of American L2 learners of Russian
shows differences between learners and native speakers choices at linguistic, structural
and discursive levels in a complaint behavior. The investigation of direct complaints also
reveals gender preferences in complaining by native and non-native speakers of Russian,
which contributes to the field of SLA and Identity.
Moreover, the findings of this study offer empirical support for study abroad
programs by providing insights into pragmatic competence of American learners of
Russian upon their exposure to the target language and culture. Finally, the comparison
of complaints of native and non-native speakers in Russian sheds light on dominant
linguistic norms and sociocultural values in both cultures. Therefore, the results of the
current study have the potential to increase learners cross-cultural awareness and inform
sociopragmatic curricular content for a new generation of learners of Russian.
1.6.4. Pedagogical implications.
This empirical study benefits the field of SLA, and it particularly benefits the
acquisition of Russian as a second language because of the emergence of sociopragmatic
competences for the interlanguage production of adult English-speaking learners of the
language. This work also concludes with some recommendations for classroom
26
instruction and curriculum design. This study suggests that authentic dialogs featuring
direct complaints performed by Russian speakers should be included in the classroom
material so that learners would better understand how Russian speakers perceive
intracultural variability (social distance and social power), and individual variability
(gender) in complaint situations (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984). Instructors may use
complaint situations to explain linguistic and sociocultural norms in Russian, which
would help L2 learners of Russian to successfully perform a speech act of complaint at
the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels, and, consequently, help them to
effectively negotiate relationships with Russian native speakers. A classroom interaction
featuring direct complaints should help L2 learners of Russian to avoid pragmatic failures
and misconceptions about the target language and culture.

27
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1. Chapter Overview
This chapter identifies the theoretical framework of this study, which is grounded
in cross-cultural pragmatics. The literature in the following areas of pragmatics will be
introduced: pragmatics (sociopragmatics vs. pragmalinguistics), cross-cultural
pragmatics, and interlanguage pragmatics with pragmatic transfer; speech acts and their
universal and culture-specific features; politeness and cooperative principles; pragmatic
competence vs. pragmatic failure; and empirical studies on the speech act of complaint.
2.2. Pragmatics: Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics
Pragmatics has its roots in philosophy of language and in the work of the
philosopher, Charles Morris, who defined pragmatics as a study of the relation of signs
to interpreters (1938, p. 6), placing it in semiotics, along with semantics and syntax. He
described syntax as a study of relations between signs, and semantics as a study of
relations between signs and the objects to which they refer.
Within the field of linguistics, pragmatics occupied a marginal position for some
time. Some considered pragmatics a rag-bag domain where different data found their
home because they could not be explained by traditional linguists (Leech, 1983, p. 1).
However, scholars have emphasized that pragmatics differs from linguistics because
pragmatics does not focus on linguistic forms or structures but on language that speakers
use in context. Moreover, pragmatics examines meaning created by speakers in social
interactions, in which their language choice is governed by sociocultural constraints.
Thus, according to Leech (1983), central to pragmatics is the question of What did you
28
mean by X? which, in turn, differentiates pragmatics from semantics that defines
meaning as What does X mean? (p. 6).
However, there is no consensus among contemporary scholars on what exactly
constitutes pragmatics; for that reason, various and even contradictory definitions of
pragmatics exist. One contemporary definition was proposed by David Crystal (1985),
who defined pragmatics as:
[T]he study of the language from the point of view of users, especially
of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in
social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in
the act of communication. (p. 240)
Crystal expanded the original concept of pragmatics by incorporating into the
definition the effects of social interaction on interlocutors, which, according to Kasper
and Rose (2002), are an important issue in otherwise incompatible pragmatic theories
(p. 4). Kasper (1997) stressed that the act of communication refers not only to speech acts
that studies in pragmatics often have examined, but also to different kinds of discourse
and speech events. Clark (1996) broadened the definition of pragmatics by including not
only linguistic, but also non-linguistic means, such as gestures, eye contact, and body
language. Some studies have shown that these non-verbal means may complete speech
act realization or may replace the verbal exchange among interlocutors (Arent, 1996;
Bonikowska, 1998). For example, an annoyed person may knock very loudly on the wall
instead of complaining about noise in a neighboring apartment.
Furthermore, Leech (1983) and Thomas (1983) proposed to divide pragmatics
into pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics. Pragmalinguistics refers to linguistic

29
strategies like directness, indirectness, language routines, and linguistic forms employed
by speakers in communicative acts while sociopragmatics describes the social conditions
in which language use is appropriate. In a complaint situation, speakers may choose
various linguistic strategies to express their disappointment, such as You have not washed
the dishes again or The dishes have not been washed again. Although the speakers
complain in both situations, they directly put the responsibility on the hearer in the
former; in the latter, they avoid directly blaming the hearer for the dirty dishes by
employing non-conventional indirectness (Blum-Kulka, 1997, p. 46). In a complaint
situation, the speaker may use directness, indirectness or non-conventional indirectness,
which may intensify or soften the speech act of complaint. Scholars in pragmalinguistics
investigate these linguistic strategies.
Sociopragmatics, in turn, refers to social norms and cultural values that govern the
language choices that speakers make in communicative acts. An appropriate speech act
realization requires from the speakers an assessment of social factors, such as social
distance, relative social power, and the degree of imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1987),
as well as an assessment of cultural values, which determine rights and obligations in a
society (Thomas, 1983). For example, in American culture, a student may address a
professor by using his/her first name, while in Russian culture this is out of the question
because of different social norms between students and professors. Therefore,
sociocultural norms require from speakers an appropriate linguistic choice in speech act
realization within one culture and across cultures.

30
2.3. Speech Acts
The study of linguistic pragmatics and speech acts was developed in the 1970s,
influenced by philosophers like John L. Austin, J. Searle, and H.P. Grice. Austin (1962)
defined speech act theory in his book How to Do Things with Words (1962). According to
his work, language consists of acts, or more precisely, speech acts, such as locutionary
acts, which are what is actually said, for example, The book is interesting; illocutionary
acts, which are a performance of a communicative act or what the speaker does through
an utterance, for example, making a request, Could you please buy an interesting book
for me? or Buy an interesting book for me, please!; and perlocutionary acts, which are the
hearers or speakers reaction, for example, a refusal, I will not buy the book for you.3
According to Austin (1962):
Saying something will often, or even normally, produce certain consequential
effects upon the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the audience, or of the speaker,
or of other persons; it may be done with the design, intention, or purpose of
producing them . . . we shall call the performance of an act of this kind the
performance of a perlocutionary act. (p. 101)
Based on Austins speech act theory, speakers use language to achieve an
intended communicative goal while performing communicative acts of greeting,
apologizing, refusing, complaining, making a request, giving a compliment, inviting, and
others. Austin identified some sentences and utterances as performatives because
speakers use them not simply to say something, but to perform an action (1962, p. 6). For
example, an American speaker saying, I apologize for being late, performs the act of
apologizing by using the performative verb to apologize. However, performatives can be

3
The examples are my own. For more on the typology, see Austin, 1992, p. 102.
31
successfully realized only in appropriate circumstances, so called felicity conditions, in
which the circumstances and the participants in a communicative act are appropriate
(Austin, 1962, p. 8). For example, the utterance, You are hired, is felicitous only in the
circumstances when the speaker has the authority to do so.
Austins work has been continued and further developed by John R. Searle (1969,
1975, 1979), who established a taxonomy of speech acts4 according to their illocutionary
force, i.e., their intended communicative meaning. Searle (1979) classified the speech
acts into five categories: assertives, which are utterances that express what the speaker
believes to be the case and the truth, such as suggestion, statement, boast, complaint, and
claim, for example, I state that it is raining; directives, which are utterances used by the
speaker to make the hearer do something, such as command, order, request, advise, and
permit, for example, I order you to leave; commissives, which are utterances that assign
the speaker to do something in the future, such as promise, pledge, and offer, for
example, I promise to pay you the money; expressives, which are utterances that express
speakers feelings, such as thanks, complaint, apology, and congratulations, for example,
I thank you for giving me the money; and declarations, which are utterances that express
an act that causes a change in the reality, such as appointing, naming, resigning,
confirming, and declaring, for example, If I successfully perform the act of marrying you,
then you are married (pp.12-27).
Furthermore, Searle (1969, 1975) identified felicity conditions, which he
perceived as constitutive and universal for a successful speech act realization. Searle
(1975) distinguished the following conditions: preparatory conditions, which are needed
4
Austin (1962) first proposed five categories of speech acts: verdictives, exercitives, commissives,
expositives, and behabitives, which Searle (1979) revised in his work.
32
for a speech act to be performed, for example, the hearer is able to perform a request;
propositional content conditions, which predict the act through the semantic
characteristics of the utterance, for example, I will do it for you (p. 80); sincerity
conditions, which describe the speakers wants and beliefs, for example, I plan on
repairing it for you next week (p. 80); and essential conditions, which, for a request,
describe the speakers attempt to get the hearer to do something (p. 71). Searle treated
these conditions as universal models for speech act investigation.
2.3.1. Indirect speech acts.
Speech acts have been further characterized as direct and indirect. In direct speech
acts, the literal meaning of a sentence, the locution, matches its communicative function,
the illocution (Searle, 1975). For example, seeing a mess in the kitchen, a speaker may
use an imperative form to convey an order or a request, Clean the kitchen, please! In
addition to direct speech acts, Searle distinguishes indirect speech acts, in which the
literal sentence meaning differs from the speakers intended meaning. According to
Searle (1975):
In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he
actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information,
both linguistic and nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality
and inference of the part of the hearer. (pp. 60-61)
Searle (1975) gave the following example for an indirect speech act: Can you reach the
salt? (p. 60). This example expresses not simply a question, but also a request. Thus, this
utterance has two illocutionary forces (p. 60). Moreover, Searle identified some forms as
33
conventional indirectness, such as can you, could you, would you,5 which he calls
idiomatic because interlocutors can recognize them as request markers. Therefore, the
hearers do not perceive the utterance Can you reach the salt? as a question about their
ability to do something, but as a request (p. 76).
Searle emphasized the significance of indirectness in speech act realization. He
pointed out that indirect speech acts are more polite than direct speech acts because they
may mitigate or soften the act itself. According to Searle (1975), politeness is the most
prominent motivation for indirectness in requests (p. 76) and some linguistic forms are
conventionally established as the standard idiomatic forms for indirect speech acts (p.
76). However, Searle was aware that indirectness in requests is not felicitous in all
languages.
In addition to conventional indirect speech acts, Searle identified non-
conventional indirect speech acts, whose communicative meaning is not transparent
either from the illocution itself or from the language conventions. For example, when a
speaker is saying, The dog is on the sofa, the hearer needs to infer the speakers
communicative intention: Is the speaker informing the hearer of the dogs location? Is he
complaining about the dog that is not supposed to be on the sofa? Or is he trying to make
the hearer do something else for him, i.e., an indirect request?
To assess the illocutionary force in non-conventional indirectness, scholars have
applied a conversation model that H.P. Grice (1975) created based on his lectures from
1967. According to Grice, the hearer can recognize the speakers intended meaning
because the interlocutors cooperate with each other, and each of them contributes to the
topic in a rational way. He identified this principle of communication as the Cooperative

5
A list of conventional forms used in indirect directives can be found in Searle, 1975, pp. 65-67.
34
Principle, which he explained in the following manner: make your conversational
contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose
or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (Grice, 1975, p. 45).
Moreover, Grice identified four categories: quantity, quality, relation, and manner, which
he called Maxims. In actual conversation, interlocutors may violate the maxims, i.e., flout
them;6 however, the Cooperative Principle helps the hearer to figure out the
conversational implicature, i.e., what the speaker means, but did not say specifically7 (p.
82).
Although some studies have shown cultural limitations in Grices model of
conversation (e.g., Wierzbicka, 1991; Goddard & Wierzbicka, 1997), Grices
Cooperative Principle and his Maxims have shown a strong impact on development of
politeness phenomena, including politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987), politeness
principle with tact rules (Leech, 1983), and other theories in the field of pragmatics,
discourse, and sociology, such as taxonomy of illocutionary acts (Bach & Harnish, 1979),
communication theory (Goffman, 1967), and relevance theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986).
Moreover, Grices model of conversation changed the focus in early research in
pragmatics from an investigation of illocutionary acts at the sentence and utterance levels
6
See Goletianis analysis (1998) about flouting the maxims in Russian.
7
For instance, in the exchange A: Has Jill already arrived? B: A red Mercedes is in the front of the
building, Grices Cooperative Principle can be explained in the following way: Interlocutor B assumes that
interlocutor A has the background knowledge that Jill owns a red Mercedes. Thus, interlocutor B believes
that interlocutor A is able to work out the meaning of his statement, which implies that Jill is already there.
Following Gricean reasoning, the interlocutors are rationally cooperating individuals in a conversation;
therefore, according to the maxim of relevance, the hearer is able to infer the intended message that the
speaker conveys in a conversational implicature.
35
(as initiated by Austin and Searle) to an investigation of speech acts at the discourse level
in authentic talk and text (Blum-Kulka, 1997).
2.3.2. Culture-specific features of speech acts.
Despite its wide use as a theoretical framework for research in pragmatics,
Searles taxonomy of speech acts remains controversial. Some scholars in the field of
pragmatics have criticized Searles classification of illocutionary acts, the validity of
felicity conditions (Bach & Harnish, 1979; Edmondson, 1981; Leech, 1983), the lack of
development of perlocutionary act, and the concentration on the role of the speaker in the
speech act realization while neglecting the hearers function (Clark, 1996). Others have
rejected Searles universal rules of politeness in speech act realization (e.g., Wierzbicka,
1985a, 1985b, 1991).
While referring to her research on Slavic languages and cultures, Wierzbicka
claimed that Searle did not identify universal requirements of politeness, but English
conversational strategies, and Anglo-Saxon cultural values, in which indirectness serves
as a conventionalized politeness marker in speech act realization (Wierzbicka, 1991, pp.
60-61). Wierzbicka disagreed with Searles requirements of politeness, according to
which
[O]rdinary conversational requirements of politeness normally make it awkward
to issue flat imperative sentences (e.g., Leave the room) or explicit performatives
(e.g., I order you to leave the room), and we therefore seek to find indirect means
to our illocutionary ends (e.g., I wonder if you would mind leaving the room). In
directives, politeness is the chief motivation for indirectness. (Searle, 1975, p. 64)
36
Wierzbicka asserted that Searles politeness mechanism is ethnocentric because it
refers to rules typical only for one language and one culture. She emphasizes that English
promotes indirectness in social interactions, but not all languages associate indirectness
with linguistic politeness. Based on a comparison of Anglo-Saxon cultures and Slavic
cultures, Wierzbicka (1991) argued that the preference for indirectness differs across
cultures, and indirectness is not necessarily associated with politeness. Her studies
showed that Poles use direct imperatives as a conventionalized form in requests, offers,
and suggestions, accompanied by a politeness marker, for example, Prosz otwrz okno!,
Please open a window!/informal, or by diminutives, which soften the speech act, for
example, Marysiu, otwrz okno!, Mary, open a window! Unlike Anglo-Saxon cultures,
the imperatives are not perceived in Polish culture as impolite behavior8 (Wierzbicka,
1985a, 1991; Marcjanik, 1997, Ogiermann, 2009a). The studies that Polish linguists have
conducted illustrate that the imperatives in directives are perceived as polite linguistic
behavior in Polish culture, which contradicts Searles assumption that the interlocutors
have to avoid imperatives and employ indirectness to sound polite in social interactions.
Similarly, in Russian culture, speakers use direct imperative as a polite request 9
(Thomas, 1983; Mills, 1991; Rathmayr, 1994; Berger, 2006; Larina, 2009), for example,
, , !, Please, open a window!/informal. Russians also use direct

8
There is no consensus among Polish linguists on what constitutes the most polite request realization in
Polish. Wierzbicka asserts that Poles, unlike Americans, do not use the interrogative with the conditionals
could you or would you in requests because they sound formal and elaborately polite and may be
perceived by the hearer as strange or amusing (Wierzbicka, 1991, p. 34). Therefore, according to
Wierzbicka, the interrogatives are not associated with politeness in Polish culture. However, Ogiermanns
(2009a) and Marcjaniks (1997) studies on requests contradict Wierzbickas assumptions about indirectness
in requests. Ogiermanns study showed that Poles use the conditional interrogatives more frequently than
direct strategies (2009a, p. 199), while Marcjaniks study indicated that the conditional interrogatives serve
as the most polite request strategies in Polish culture (1997, p. 165).
9
However, an empirical study on request in service encounters that Owen (2001) conducted contradicts
these assertions. Owens study showed that Russian speakers hardly used the imperative in requests (only
5.4% of the time) while they mostly employed indirect strategies (p. 148). According to the researcher, the
request environment may have affected the minimal use of the imperative (p. 215).
37
imperatives with a diversity of diminutives (Larina, 2009, pp. 223-224), which show
affection and warmth between interlocutors (Wierzbicka, 1991). As in Polish, the
diminutives minimize the speakers imposition over the hearer and establish solidarity
between the interlocutors (Rathmayr, 1996, p. 371).
Wierzbicka (1991) asserted that linguistic politeness differs across cultures
because it has its roots in cultural values. She stated that American speakers avoid using
the imperative because they do not want to impose their wants upon the interlocutor due
to respect for the hearers privacy and autonomy. In contrast, Poles and Russians do not
perceive directness reflected in the imperative as imposition upon the interlocutors
freedom, but as a reflection of sincerity and intimacy. In Polish and Russian cultures,
directness indicates straightforwardness and solidarity in social interactions, which
speakers from Anglo-Saxon cultures can perceive as rudeness or imposition upon the
interlocutors autonomy and individualism (Wierzbicka, 1985a, 1991; Hoffman, 1989;
Rathmayr, 1994; Bergelson, 2003, Larina, 2009; Ogiermann, 2009b).
However, as Ogiermann (2009b) pointed out, Wierzbickas research does not
include a variety of indirect linguistic strategies used in directives in Polish (Marcjanik,
1997; Ogiermann, 2009a) and Russian (Mills, 1991, 1992). Ogiermanns (2009a) study
on directives showed that Poles prefer indirectness in their encounters with strangers,
while research that Mills (1992) conducted indicates that Russians use language-specific
negative indirectness as the most conventionalized polite form of request,10 for example,
?, Couldnt you bring potatoes? Interestingly,
Zemskaja (1997) pointed out that an indirect request can be perceived as manipulative in
10
However, an empirical study conducted by Larina (2009) shows that Russians prefer the imperative in
requests (58.25%), and they use the negative indirectness less frequently (37.22%; p. 449).
38
Russian, particularly in the family setting: A husband can perceive a wifes indirect
request as manipulation (p. 283).
Research has shown, as is evident from the foregoing, that politeness encoded in
language is culture-specific; therefore, politeness rules cannot be analyzed from the
perspective of one culture and one language. Research has shown that indirectness does
not have an absolute cultural value (polite vs. not polite). As demonstrated, Slavic
cultures value directness as a manifestation of sincerity, honesty and lack of artifice. On
the contrary, Anglo-Saxon cultures associate indirectness with politeness. Nevertheless,
Searles classification of speech acts and his concept of indirectness can serve as a valid
framework for cross-cultural and interlanguage studies, provided that pragmalinguistic
and sociopragmatic norms in each culture are taken into account.
2.4. Politeness Theory
Using Grices model of conversation as a foundation for their theories, some
scholars (Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 199011)
commonly have conceptualized linguistic politeness as a strategy that speakers employ to
avoid conflicts in communication (Kasper, 1990). However, there is little agreement
among researchers on exactly what constitutes the politeness phenomenon. Lakoff (1973)
did the earliest research on politeness in Logic of Politeness. Lakoff defined politeness
and clarity as constitutive parts of pragmatic competence (see next chapter on pragmatic
competence); however, she prioritized politeness because it is more important in a
conversation to avoid offense than to achieve clarity (1973, pp. 297-298). According to
11
In his article Perspectives on Politeness, Fraser (1990) gives a critical overview of existing politeness
theories by distinguishing the social view, the conversational-maxim view, the face-saving view, and the
conversational-contract view. The latter is Frasers own definition of the politeness phenomenon (p. 219).
39
Lakoff, in order to be polite, one should behave according to one or more of the
politeness rules: 1. Dont impose 2. Give options 3. Make A [addressee] feel good be
friendly (p. 298).
Leech (1983) defined politeness as an important missing link between the CP
[Cooperative Principle] and the problem of how to relate sense to force (p. 104). He
expanded Grices Cooperative Principle by proposing a Politeness Principle with six
maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, and sympathy (1983, p. 132),
all of which are applied to different speech acts. For example, Searles expressives and
assertives call for the modesty maxim and approbation maxim (p. 132).
The present study has adopted the face-saving concept of politeness, as defined by
Brown and Levinson (1987), which scholars have widely applied in research in cross-
cultural and interlanguage pragmatics. Brown and Levinson (1987) based their theory of
politeness on the principles of rationality and face, the latter derived from Goffmans
(1967) concept of face. However, their conceptualization differs from Goffmans notion
of face by defining face as a reflection of an individuals needs, or a persons basic
wants, while Goffman based his concept on a persons belonging to a group (Goffman,
1999, my emphasis). Expressions, such as English to lose face or to save face,12 Polish
zachowa twarz, to save face, or straci twarz, to lose face (Jakubowska, 1999), Russian
, to lose face (Larina, 2009), or German das Gesicht wahren, to save
face, or das Gesicht verlieren, to lose face, indicate that face can be lost (for example,
through embarrassment or humiliation), enhanced or maintained in social interactions.
12
In contrast, Mao (1992) places the roots of the concept of face in Chinese culture. Mao asserts that the
expression to save ones face originally appeared in the English community in China and had a positive
meaning.
40
Brown and Levinson described the need to maintain face in the society from
two perspectives: as a positive face, i.e., a persons desire to be positively perceived and
appreciated by other members of the society, and a negative face, i.e., a persons desire
not to be imposed upon in his/her actions (1987, p. 61). Based on their theory,
interlocutors try to satisfy their need in social interactions to maintain their positive or
negative face while considering the face of the hearer. Brown and Levinson asserted that
some speech acts are inherently face-threatening because their performance can affect the
speakers and the hearers positive and/or negative face, for example, the speech acts of
request and complaint (p. 65).
In order to avoid face-threatening acts or at least to minimize the threat, the
speakers, involved in face-work (Goffman, 1999, p. 309), may use a certain strategy,
which depends on their estimation of risk of face loss. According to Brown and Levinson,
an interaction of three social factors determines the speakers choice of a certain strategy
in a face-threatening act (FTA): relative power (P), distance (D), and the degree of
imposition (R; 1987, p. 15). P expresses the power of the hearer over the speaker, D
reflects the social distance between them, and R reveals the ranking of the imposition of
the speaker on the hearer in FTAs (p. 15). The authors asserted that the weightiness of
these factors determines the degree of linguistic politeness that the speakers employ in
FTAs (p. 76).
If the threat to the speakers or the hearers face is great, the speaker may opt out
of the FTA and not say anything. If the speakers decide to perform the FTA, regardless of
a high risk of face loss, they may choose an off-record strategy, which does not attribute
clear communicative intention to the speakers (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 69). For
41
example, in the presence of a friend/ the hearer, when paying for lunch, the speaker may
say, Oh no, I forgot my wallet. Usually, the speakers utterances are indirect, so that their
intent can be negotiable. In contrast, speakers may clearly express their intentions using
on record strategies, performing an act without redress, baldly (p. 69); for example, Loan
me a few dollars.
The speakers can also balance their needs of face with those of the interlocutors
by choosing a redressive action, which can be conveyed through positive or negative
politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 70). Positive-politeness strategies
strengthen the needs of the positive face of the hearer. For example, in Lets take off our
glasses (Blum-Kulka, 1997, p. 51), a hairdresser/the speaker mitigates a command
toward the client/the hearer by using the possessive pronoun in the first person plural,
which indicates treating him [the hearer] as a member of an in-group (Brown &
Levinson, 1999, p. 329). Thus, positive politeness may serve to establish solidarity
among interlocutors.
Negative-politeness strategies acknowledge the needs of the negative face of the
hearers and their desires to maintain freedom and private space. Brown and Levinson
treated indirect linguistic strategies, protective of both the speakers and the hearers face,
as conventionalized negative politeness that softens the FTA by obviating the speakers
need to go on record, and limiting the degree of imposition on the hearer (1987, p. 70).
For example, in the indirect request, Could you please buy some cheese?, the speaker
gives the hearer an option of refusing his/her request by using the interrogative and the
conditional mood. By employing this linguistic strategy, the speaker saves his/her
positive face and avoids imposing upon the hearers negative face. The negative-
42
politeness strategy also maintains to some degree a social distance between interlocutors
by minimizing the speakers imposition upon the hearers territory and freedom. 13
Brown and Levinson (1987) treated the notion of face as a universal mechanism
in polite linguistic behavior, but they acknowledged that this concept can undergo
cultural specification:
[W]hile the content of face will differ in different cultures (what the exact limits
are to personal territories, and what the publically relevant content of personality
consists in), we are assuming that the mutual knowledge of members public self-
image or face, and the social necessity to orient oneself to it in interaction, are
universal. (pp. 61-62)
In sum, Brown and Levinson proposed that politeness is based on mutual respect toward
needs of each others face in social interactions, which they perceived as universal.
However, they recognized that polite behavior will differ across cultures because of
sociocultural values underlying each culture.
2.4.1. Counterevidence to the universality of Brown and Levinsons

politeness theory.
Scholars in cross-cultural pragmatics have challenged the universality of
politeness strategies and the notion of face, which are central for Brown and Levinsons
politeness theory. Some scholars have criticized the politeness theory because of its
apparent dependence on data from Western languages, according to which indirectness is
a conventionalized expression of politeness. Wierzbicka, whose work is often cited as
counterevidence to the universality of indirectness in politeness, claimed that politeness is
13
The components of social distance in negative politeness and solidarity in positive politeness have been
reflected by Rathmayr (1996) in German-language literature. She translated the terms negative politeness
as Distanzhoflichkeit, which reflects social distance in social interactions, and positive politeness as
Solidaritatshoflichkeit, which refers to establishing solidarity between interlocutors (1996, p. 376).
43
usually associated with indirectness in Western cultures, but that is not necessarily the
case with other languages and language groups, such as Slavic or Mediterranean cultures,
which favor directness in social interactions (Wierzbicka, 1991).
In her argument against the universality of Brown and Levinsons politeness
theory, Wierzbicka (1991) asserted that scholars have defined politeness from a largely
anglocentric position since the principles constituting their theory are typical for the
English language and culture; thus, they are culture-specific and not universal. While
referring to her cross-cultural studies on various languages and cultures, Wierzbicka
(1991) claimed that the notion of face, which conveys avoidance of imposition and
approval by others, has an anglocentric bias. Wierzbicka (1985a, 1991) argued that
indirectness, identified by Brown and Levinson as a conventionalized negative-politeness
strategy that speakers employ to avoid imposition and to maintain social distance, is
associated with politeness in Western cultures,14 but not all cultures equate indirectness
with politeness.
Research has shown that cultures assign different values to directness and
indirectness. As already discussed, Poles use positive politeness strategies, expressed in
directness, to establish solidarity and closeness in social interactions (Wierzbicka, 1985a,
1991; Ogiermann, 2009a, 2009b). In Russian culture, directness conveys culture-specific
values, such as honesty, intimacy, and lack of artifice; therefore, Russians associate
directness with politeness (Ogiermann, 2009b, p. 43). Similarly, Hebrew speakers prefer
directness and positive politeness strategies, for example, in requests (Blum-Kulka et al.,
1985) or complaints (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987, 1993; Gershenson 1994, 2003).
14
As Ogiermann (2009b, p.13) points out, Brown and Levinson acknowledged negative politeness as
typical for Western cultures. Nevertheless, they identified negative politeness strategies as more polite than
positive politeness strategies in FTAs (1987, pp. 129-130).
44
Gershensons studies on complaints showed that Hebrew speakers perceive directness as
a way to establish solidarity between interlocutors, while they associate indirectness with
manipulation (2003, p. 287). As evident from the foregoing, cultures associate different
values with directness and indirectness, and these values, in turn, affect the speakers
choice of positive- or negative-politeness strategies.
Blum-Kulka (1987) also argued against the assumption that the more face-
threatening the act, the higher the degree of indirectness. In her study, American and
Hebrew speakers perceived conventional indirectness as the most polite strategy in
requests, for example, Could you clean up the mess in the kitchen, but their perception
differed with regard to non-conventional indirectness (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p. 133). The
results of her study (1987) contradict Brown and Levinsons model of politeness,
according to which hints are the most indirect structures, so they should be perceived as
highly polite (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 144). Hebrew speakers perceived hints in
sentences like Youve left the kitchen in a right mess (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p. 133) as less
polite than Americans did because of a lack of transparency. Blum-Kulka suggested that
the imbalance between pragmatic clarity and the needs to minimize the FTA can cause
the hearer to invest more time and effort into understanding the speakers intention (p.
144). Thus, non-conventional indirectness can be linked with impoliteness in Hebrew
culture.
Ogiermanns (2009b) cross-cultural study on apologies also provided
counterevidence to Brown and Levinsons equation between indirectness and politeness.
In her study, Poles and Russians, who represent positive-politeness cultures,15 displayed
15
Brown and Levinson introduced the distinction between positive and negative- politeness cultures
(1987, pp. 246-247). They based the distribution on the assumption that positive-politeness cultures assign
45
more concern about positive face16 than negative face when performing remedial
apologies, while British speakers coming from a negative-politeness culture focused on
negative face (p. 260). Consequently, Poles and Russians used positive politeness
strategies (with a strong preference for directness in Russian), while British speakers used
negative politeness strategies to satisfy the needs of negative face. The results of
Ogiermanns study revealed that Russians and Poles perceived indirect politeness
strategies that English speakers employed in their apologies as vague and impersonal;
therefore, the British speakers were treated as less polite (2009b, p. 249). These findings
contradicted Brown and Levinsons positive correlation between indirectness and
politeness.
In her numerous publications, Wierzbicka raised objections against the
terminology that Brown and Levinson used to create a universal model of politeness. She
claims that terms like indirectness, politeness, directness, or face are typical for English,
and they may not have an exact equivalent in other languages, may be conceptualized
differently, or may not exist in every culture. Her research (1991) showed that American
culture is seen as direct when contrasted with Japanese culture, but it is perceived as
indirect when compared with Hebrew (p. 235). Therefore, she proposed an independent
semantic metalanguage based on semantic primitives, such as people, someone,
something, this, say, think, want, know, good, bad, and no, which, in her opinion, can
small values to social distance, social power, and the degree of imposition, while negative-politeness
cultures assign large values to these social factors. As a result, speakers in negative-politeness cultures use
more face-saving strategies when performing FTAs than speakers in positive-politeness cultures.
16
Interestingly, Polish speakers focused on the needs of the positive face of the speaker and of the hearer,
while Russian speakers showed a lower degree of face threat than Polish or British speakers (Ogiermann,
2009b, p. 260).
46
serve as a valid linguistic and conceptual foundation for research on speech acts across
cultures (Wierzbicka, 1985b; Goddard & Wierzbicka, 1997).
Scholars from Asian cultures (Matsumoto, 1988; Ide, 1989; Mao, 1994) have
criticized Brown and Levinsons universal concept of face because their concept is not
valid in Chinese and Japanese cultures. The Chinese concept of face is based on two
interpretations of face: Mianzi, which stands for face as prestige or reputation achieved in
life, and lian, a persons moral reputation (Mao, 1994, p. 457). Both of these
interpretations constitute face as a public image, which contrasts Brown and Levinsons
face as a public self-image (p. 459-460). In Chinese culture, the concept of face is based
on a group identity, which focuses on social acceptability and respect from other
members of the society (p. 460). This conceptualization of face contradicts Brown and
Levinsons negative face needs which are based on an individuals independence and
freedom. Thus, the Chinese concept of face provides counterevidence to Brown and
Levinsons claim to the universality of the notion of face.
Similarly, in Japanese culture, social acceptance is the most important principle
for social interactions, and not an individuals wants to preserve independence and
private territory (Matsumoto, 1988; Mao, 1994). As Matsumoto (1988) explained:
What is a paramount concern to Japanese is not his/her territory, but the position
in relation to the others in the group and his/her acceptance by those others. Loss
of face is associated with the perception by others that one has not comprehended
and acknowledged the structure and hierarchy of the group. (p. 405)
A different conceptualization of face in Japanese culture affects linguistic politeness
strategies, which show a higher value on recognition of the interpersonal relation than
47
on mitigating impositions on freedom of action (Matsumoto, 1988, p. 421). Therefore,
Japanese politeness strategies (called honorific)17have contradicted Brown and
Levinsons concept of negative face and negative-politeness strategies (p. 414). As the
studies on Chinese and Japanese cultures have illustrated, Brown and Levinsons concept
of preserving negative face needs of an individual cannot be treated as a universal model
for politeness in Asian cultures.
The preponderance of research that has appeared in the years since the publication
of Brown and Levinsons study on politeness theory clearly have indicated that the
politeness rules emerging from the notion of face are deeply rooted in the sociocultural
values and linguistic behaviors of every specific culture. What remains valuable in
Brown and Levinsons theory, however, is their emphasis on the universality of the inner
mechanism of politeness based on mutual respect.
Regarding the acquisition and proper use of politeness behaviors in a target
language, it is clear that learners and instructors will need to attend to cultural differences
that inform the selection of politeness strategies in the L2 and second culture in order to
avoid direct transfer of L1 and first culture in the learners speech. The need for better
descriptions and analyses of the strategies can do much to inform a new generation of
curricula.
2.5. Pragmatic Competence versus Pragmatic Failure
The notion of pragmatic competence derives from Hymes (1972)
communicative competence that combines linguistic knowledge and socio-cultural rules,
which enable learners to use the language appropriately. Some scholars have appeared to
use the term pragmatic competence as a synonym for communicative competence

17
More information about linguistic politeness in Japanese can be found in Matsumoto, 1988.
48
(Schmidt & Richards, 1980; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985), while others have treated
pragmatic competence as a constituent of communicative competence (Fraser, Rintell &
Walters, 1981; Kasper, 1990; Savignon, 1991).
Various language-related disciplines have investigated the notion of pragmatic
competence, which has generated numerous definitions of pragmatic competence (see
Canale & Swain, 1980; Kasper, 1997; Trosborg, 1995). The present study follows
Thomas (1983), who defined pragmatic competence as the ability to use language
effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context
(p. 92). Furthermore, Thomas also distinguished pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
failures that constitute pragmatic failure, that is, learners inability to understand what
is meant by what is said, which can cause a communication breakdown between native
and non-native speakers (1983, p. 91).
Pragmalinguistic failures may occur when learners transfer linguistic strategies
from their native language to the target language while performing a speech act. For
example, learners may choose different linguistic structures than those that native
speakers use in a certain situation (direct strategies instead of indirect or off-record
politeness; Thomas, 1983, p. 102). Sociopragmatic failures, in turn, have their roots in
differences resulting from learners assessment of the level of imposition, social distance,
relative power, rights, and obligations in the target language (Thomas, 1983, p. 105). For
example, an American learner of Russian can misjudge the social distance between a
teacher and a student in Russian culture by greeting a Russian teacher with ,
Hi. To avoid sociopragmatic failures in speech act realization, learners need to make
49
linguistic choices according to the sociocultural context in which the language use is
appropriate (pp. 103-104).
Pragmatic failures can cause unpleasant situations and misunderstandings
between native and non-native speakers because learners pragmatic incompetence may
be mistakenly attributed to impoliteness, unfriendliness, boorishness, or ill-will (Thomas,
1983, p. 97). Therefore, learners need to improve their pragmatic competence to avoid
misunderstandings with native speakers and to achieve their communicative goals in
speech act realization in the target language community.
2.6. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics
Scholars in cross-cultural pragmatics have explored speech act realization across
cultures by focusing on politeness, its function and value, and universal and culture-
specific characteristics of speech acts (Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper, 1989). In her work,
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Wierzbicka (1991)
identified four primary ideas informing cross-cultural studies:
1) In different societies, and different communities, people speak differently.
2) These differences in ways of speaking are profound and systematic.
3) These differences reflect different cultural values, or at least different
hierarchies of values.
4) Different ways of speaking, different communicative styles, can be explained
and made sense of, in terms of independently established different cultural
values and cultural priorities. (p. 69)

50
One of the well-known empirical studies that investigated the nature of speech
acts across cultures is known as the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project
(CCSARP), which was initiated by Blum-Kulka, House and Kasper (1989). In this
project, the authors explored native and non-native performance of two speech acts,
request and apology, in seven languages or their varieties, such as Australian English or
Canadian French. Originally, Russian was among the languages (listed as the eighth
language) to be investigated, but it was not included in the project (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1984). The goal of this project was two-fold: first, to establish native speakers
realization patterns of requests and apologies, according to social and contextual factors,
and, second, to compare the native speakers norms with those of non-native speakers in
terms of the same social and contextual constraints (p. 197).
In this project, the authors developed a theoretical and methodological framework
to compare realization patterns of request and apologies across languages and cultures.
To obtain empirical data, a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was utilized to assess
participants grammatical and sociocultural competences (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984,
p. 198). Each situation in the DCT specified the context and social variables (distance and
power between the interlocutors), and an incomplete dialog followed, which was
intended to provide native and non-native speakers linguistic and structural choices in
requests and apologies.
To analyze the data obtained in DCTs, Blum-Kulka et al. designed a coding
system and taxonomy of directness. The coding system consisted of main and
subcategories, which they considered a universal model for a cross-cultural analysis
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 209). For example, the speech act of request
51
encompassed the following dimensions: address term(s), head act, and adjunct(s) to head
act (p. 200). The taxonomy of directness is based on three major levels of directness:
direct, conventionally indirect, and non-conventional indirect, and it includes the
following categories (for the speech act of request): hearer oriented, speaker oriented,
speaker and hearer oriented, and impersonal (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 203).
Other scholars have widely used the coding system and the taxonomy of directness to
establish universal and culture-specific characteristics of speech acts. For these reasons,
the present study will also make use of the CCSARP with minor modifications, which are
outlined further in Chapter 3.6.
2.7. Interlanguage Pragmatics and Language Transfer
Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) combines two disciplines: pragmatics and
interlanguage, which is a central construct in the field of second language acquisition.
Selinker (1972) introduced the term interlanguage as a separate linguistic system, which
results from the learners attempt to produce norms of the target language. This system is
neither the system of L2 nor of L1; thus, linguists often have described interlanguage as
the learners knowledge under construction (Kasper, 1998, p. 184). Interlanguage
pragmatics, in turn, focuses on how non-native speakers comprehend, produce, and
acquire speech acts in a second language and how their pragmatic competence develops
over time (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Kasper 1998; Kasper & Rose, 2002).
Furthermore, learners may include elements from their L1 into their interlanguage
system, which is known as transfer. Odlin (2003) identified transfer as the influence
resulting not only from the L1, but also from any other languages that the learner
52
previously acquired. Moreover, linguists have distinguished between positive and
negative transfer. Positive transfer can facilitate comprehension of the target language
due to similarities between the L1 and the target language, while negative transfer can
lead to learners pragmalinguistic failures due to differences between native and non-
native language norms (Thomas, 1983, p. 102). According to some scholars, pragmatic
failure may result from both types of transfer, positive and negative (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1986), while negative transfer may not necessarily lead to pragmatic failure
since [the] equation difference = negative transfer = error has proved to be just as little
true for pragmatics as for other domains of nonnative language learning and use, though
it has an indisputable heuristic value (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993, p. 13).
While performing a speech act, learners may transfer direct strategies from their
L1 instead of using indirect strategies that native speakers employ in a certain context in
the target language. For example, Russian speakers may transfer an imperative in a
request from their L1 by saying Tell me where the post office is?, which is avoided in
American culture where an indirect request is preferred like Could you please tell me
where the post office is? As a result, negative transfer can lead to unpleasant situations
with native speakers, who can perceive non-native speakers linguistic behavior as
impolite or even aggressive.
Despite a growing number of empirical studies in interlanguage pragmatics, some
aspects of learners interlanguage have not received enough attention (Trosborg, 1995).
Some scholars (e.g., Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Shardakova, 2009) have pointed out a
deficiency of studies on developmental interlanguage pragmatics. Shardakova (2009)
asserted that most of the existing interlanguage studies have utilized cross-sectional
53
design, which is based on different samples of learners at different proficiency levels;
however, the development of interlanguage pragmatics of the same samples of learners is
rarely investigated (p. 38).
2.8. The Speech Act of Complaint
While there is a growing body of research on speech acts across cultures, the
empirical data on direct complaints of American speakers, Russian native speakers, and
American learners of Russian remain scarce, which will be presented in Chapter 2.9.
Moreover, the speech act of complaint is particularly important for the study of face-
saving strategies, problem negotiation and exploring the impact of the cultural values on
language performance. For these reasons, the present study aims to explore the speech act
set of DC of American speakers, Russian native speakers, and American L2 learners of
Russian by offering a systematic analysis of empirical data with focus on language norms
and sociocultural values underlying both cultures.
The present study draws on previous research on direct complaints in the field of
cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics. Although this study is grounded in cross-
cultural pragmatics, this investigation will also inform the field of interlanguage
pragmatics since non-native speakers of Russian are included in the study. As Owen
(2001) pointed out, research in cross-cultural pragmatics on speech acts often provides
insights into interlanguage pragmatics when non-native performance is analyzed. At the
same time, to explore learners interlanguage, it is necessary first to establish a cross-
cultural baseline of native-speakers norms (Owen, 2001, p. 29). This chapter will present
classification and definitions of complaints, and it will outline the major findings of
54
previous empirical studies on direct complaints in cross-cultural and interlanguage
pragmatics.
2.8.1. Classification of complaints.
According to Austins classification of speech acts, complaints belong to
performatives, which can be explicit, for example, I censure, half descriptive, for
example, I blame, or descriptive, for example, I am disgusted by. They can also belong to
behabitives, a subclass of performatives, which convey the speakers attitudes and
feelings related to their own and others social behavior (1962, p. 83). Searle (1979)
placed complaints in two separate classes: in the class of assertives, because in a
complaint speakers make assertions about the state of affairs (p. 12), as well as in the
class of expressives, since complaints express a speakers psychological state (p. 15).
Leech (1983) described complaints as a conflictive act because their illocutionary goal
conflicts with the social goal (p. 105). Leech stated that conflictive acts are by nature
impolite because their performance causes offense; therefore, complaints are intrinsically
threatening for social interactions.
Brown and Levinson (1987) identified complaints as intrinsically face-
threatening acts because their realization can damage the speakers and the hearers
positive and negative face (pp. 65-66; see Chapter 2.4. for a review of politeness theory).
For that reason, the speaker may decide not to complain, or the speaker may choose off-
record strategies, The music is pretty loud in here, to avoid damaging good relationships
with the hearers. The speaker may also mitigate complaints by opting for positive-
politeness strategies to establish solidarity with the hearers, Lets turn down the music, or
negative-politeness strategies to give the hearer an alternative, Could you please turn
55
down the music? The speaker may also use on-record strategies, Turn down the music!
However; the on-record strategies may lead to open confrontations between the
interlocutors, particularly in formal settings.
2.8.2. Defining complaints.
Various definitions of complaints exist. Wierzbicka explained the speech act of
complaint by using the semantic primitives in the following way:
Skarga1
mwi: dzieje mi si co zego
czuj si le z tego powodu
mwi to bo chc eby mi wspczu
(Complaint 118
I say something bad is happening to me
I feel bad because of this
I say this because I want you to feel sympathy toward me)
skarga2
mwi kto powoduje e dzieje mi si co zego
czuj si le z tego powodu
mwi to bo chc eby zrobi temu komu co zego
(Complaint 2
I say someone does something that causes something bad is happening to
me
I feel bad because of this
I say this because I want you to do something bad to this person)

18
The translation from Polish into English is mine.
56
(Wierzbicka in Depta, 1999, p. 136)
Wierzbicka gave two definitions of complaints, which were based on the
speakers intentions (Depta, 1999). From her definitions, it follows that the speaker
complains to show bad feelings in order to be consoled by the hearer or to encourage the
hearer to act on his/her behalf, because of an offense. Interestingly, the speaker does not
blame the hearer for his/her frustration or annoyance, but rather needs the hearers
compassion or help.
Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) defined complaint as an expression by the speaker
of displeasure or annoyancecensureas a reaction to a past or ongoing action, the
consequences of which are perceived by S [speaker] as affecting her unfavorably . . .
[which] is usually addressed to the hearer (H) whom the S holds, at least partially,
responsible for the offensive action (p. 108). As Olshtain and Weinbach stated, upset
and irritated speakers complain because they need to free themselves from bad feelings
so that they can feel better emotionally or so that they can achieve their goals (1993, p.
109). Similar to Olshtain and Weinbach, Trosborg (1995) defined a complaint as an
illocutionary act in which the speakers convey their negative feelings about their current
situation, for which they hold the hearer directly or indirectly responsible (pp. 311-312).
Trosborg also identified the speech act of complaint as retrospective (p. 311) because the
speakers express their dissatisfaction or annoyance at something that, in their opinion, the
hearers did or failed to do, or are still doing.
Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) also specified preconditions for a speech act of a
complaint, which have to be recognized by the speaker in order for a complaint to take
place:
57
1. H [hearer] performs a socially unacceptable act (SUA) that is contrary to a
social code of behavioral norms shared by S [speaker] and H [hearer].
2. S perceives the SUA as having unfavorable consequences [for] herself, and/or
for the general public.
3. The verbal expression of S relates post facto directly or indirectly to the SUA,
thus having the illocutionary force of censure.
4. S perceives the SUA as: a) freeing S (at least partially) from the implicit
understanding of a social[ly] cooperative relationship with H . . . [and] b)
giving S the legitimate right to ask for repair in order to undo the SUA, either
for her benefit or for the public benefit. (p. 108)
Unlike Wierzbicka, Olshtain and Weinbach perceived complaints as a speech act in
which the speakers blame the hearers for the offense, and they expect some repair from
the hearers for the socially unacceptable act (1993, p. 108). Similarly, Bonikowska
(1988) recognized the following (pre)conditions for complaints:
(a) S [speaker] believes that there is a state of affairs (act A);
(b) S believes that A is at cost to S;
(c) S believes that H [hearer] is responsible for causing A;
(d) S blames H for causing A. (p. 176).
It follows from these definitions that the speech act of complaint is intrinsically face-
threatening for the speaker and the hearer in social interactions, as Brown and Levinson
proposed (1987). Therefore, to carry out a complaint, speakers need to consider what
linguistic or non-linguistic choices to make in order to achieve their communicative

58
goals, and, at the same time, to avoid damaging relationships with the interlocutors in a
complaint situation.
2.8.2.1. Direct complaints.
Boxer (1993b, 1993c) distinguished two categories of complaint: direct and indirect,
which have their origin in DAmico-Reisners (1985) study on disapproval. Direct
complaint (which reminds one of Olshtain and Weinbachs, 1993, Trosborgs, 1995, and
Bonikowskas, 1988, definitions of complaint) occurs when the speaker addresses a
complaint toward the hearer and holds him or her accountable for the dissatisfaction.
Indirect complaint occurs when the speaker does not hold the hearer responsible for the
offense but conveys dissatisfaction about himself/herself or someone/something that is
absent (1993b, pp. 106-107). For example, She is such a bad cook.
Direct complaints may be threatening for the hearers positive and negative face
because the speakers put the responsibility for their dissatisfaction on the hearers, and
blame them for the offense. For example, in a restaurant, a guest may blame a waiter by
saying, I dont care whether the soup is good or not. This is not what I ordered. Direct
complaints also threaten the speakers positive face because they impose their bad
feelings upon the interlocutors, and, consequently, the interlocutors cannot perceive them
positively.
2.8.2.2. Indirect complaints.
While the present study does not focus on indirect complaints, it is noteworthy that
indirect complaints comprise a broad range of strategies that fulfill various functions
when speakers employ them in social interactions in everyday life. Some scholars have
identified indirect complaints as troubles-talk, troubles-telling, troubles-talk narrative,

59
and troubles-sharing (see Ouellette, 2001, p. 109; Boxer, 1996, pp. 218-219). Research
on indirect complaints has shown a tendency to treat this category of complaining as
phatic communion, which Malinowski (1999) defined as talk that serves to establish
bonds of personal union between people brought together by the mere needs of
companionship and does not serve any purpose of communicating ideas (p. 304). Boxer
(1993b), who has done the most extensive research on indirect complaints, asserted that
indirect complaints can be perceived as phatic communion because people often use them
as a means of commiseration to start and to carry on a conversation with strangers or little
known interlocutors, which may establish a momentary bond (p. 121) among them. 19
Indirect complaints can be threatening for the hearers negative face because the
speakers impose their feelings upon the hearers, for example, I had such a bad day. At
the same time, the speakers risk their positive face. Interestingly, Boxer did not treat
indirect complaints as a face-threatening act. She opposed direct complaints, which are
intrinsically confrontational, to indirect complaints, which can function as a means to
negotiate interaction and work toward establishing rapport or solidarity among
interlocutors (1993b, pp. 106-107). As one of the participants in Boxers study
explained:
Indirect complaints offer the complainer a way to let off steam, a means of
leaking a complaint to the responsible party, and the possibility of
establishing a common bond with the recipient of the indirect complaint.
(1996, p. 226)
19
For example, two strangers may establish solidarity when complaining about the weather by saying, A: It
is so hot today. I cannot stand it anymore. B: Yeah. I dont like it either. Its just terrible.
60
Boxer concluded that indirect complaints cannot be treated as face-threatening
acts because they can play a positive role in social interactions, which refutes the
foundation of Brown and Levinsons politeness theory since the speakers
behavior in indirect complaints is a threat to the hearers negative face.
2.8.3. The speech act set of direct complaints.
Employing Boxers distribution of complaints, the present study focuses on direct
complaints. To investigate cross-cultural and interlanguage features of direct complaints,
a prototypical set of strategies that native speakers employ in the realization of direct
complaints needs to be established. In their study on apologies, Olshtain and Cohen
(1983) identified semantic patterns of the realization of a given speech act as a speech act
set (p. 20). They defined a speech act set as an internal composition of semantic
formulas, which are universal for a certain speech act, but their realization may be
language-specific (Olshtain & Cohen, 1983, pp. 20-21).
With regard to complaints, scholars have proposed a various number of the major
semantic realization patterns of the speech act of direct complaint, and, sometimes, they
have also employed different terminology. One of the earliest speech act sets of a direct
complaint was proposed by Schaefer (1982), who identifies the following nine semantic
components at the discourse level, based on a study on complaints in English: 1) opener;
2) orientation; 3) act statement; 4) justification of the speaker; 5) justification of the
addressee; 6) remedy; 7) threat; 8) closing; and 9) valuation (pp. 14-15).
In her study on complaints by native and non-native speakers of English at Hong
Kong University, Piotrowska (1987) adopted Schaefers (1982) taxonomy of complaints
by expanding them to include the following eight categories: 1) societal justification; 2)

61
request for explanation; 3) blame; 4) resignation; 5) conciliation; 6) persuasion; 7)
indirect disagreement; and 8) request for agreement (p. 45). Trosborg (1995) identified
four components of complaints with eight subcategories; the main components are as
follows: 1) no explicit reproach; 2) expression of annoyance or disapproval; 3)
accusation; and 4) blame (p. 315). Murthy and Neu (1996) identified the following four
strategies of a direct complaint as performed by American speakers of English and
Korean L2 learners of English: 1) explanation of purpose; 2) complaint; 3) justification
of the complaint; and 4) candidate solution (request or demand; p. 201).
The lack of consensus among scholars on the semantic components that
constitute the speech act set of complaint reflects the complexity of this speech act. It also
suggests possible difficulties that non-native speakers may encounter in a complaint
situation in the native speakers community. For these reasons, the present study will
contribute to the field of pragmatics by offering a systematic analysis of empirical data on
the speech act of direct complaint that American speakers, Russian native speakers and
American L2 learners of Russian performed.
2.8.3.1. Realization patterns of DCs based on the severity of complaint.
In a complaint situation, speakers may select a certain strategy after considering
the perception of the severity of complaint. Olshtain and Weinbach (1987) identified five
categories on the scale of severity of a direct complaint based on their study on
complaints in Hebrew as performed by 35 Israeli university students. In the study, the
participants responded in writing to 20 situations in discourse completion questionnaires,
which varied in terms of social distance and social status. With regard to degree of face-
threat, which Brown and Levinson defined, Olshtain and Weinbach (1987) established
62
the following five categories: 1. below the level of reproach, which is when the speakers
avoid an open confrontation with the hearers in order not to offend them, for example,
Never mind, nothing serious happened; 2. expression of annoyance or disapproval, which
is when the speakers do not express a clear complaint, but they do openly show that a
kind of offense has been done to them without specifying the nature of the offense and
the person who did the wrongdoing, for example, Such lack of consideration!; 3. explicit
complaint, which is when the speakers express a complaint and refer to the socially
unacceptable behavior, to the hearer, or to both, without mentioning any consequences,
for example, You are inconsiderate; 4. accusation and warning, which refers to an open
confrontation where the speakers express potential consequences of the offense that the
hearers made, for example, Next time Ill let you wait for hours; and 5. immediate threat,
which is when the speakers verbally attack the hearers, for example, Im not moving one
inch unless you change my appointment. (pp. 199-201)
In their analysis, Olshtain and Weinbach pointed out that these five major
categories reflect the speakers position related to the hearers face and the possibility for
repair. According to the authors, these semantic formulas based on the scale for the
severity of a complaint can serve as the realization patterns of the speech act set of direct
complaints (1987, p. 202). The present study did not utilize Olshtain and Weinbachs
distribution based on the severity of complaint because it is too broad to capture the
differences in the speech act set between American and Russian native speakers.
63
2.9. Empirical Studies on Direct Complaints
2.9.1. Previous cross-cultural studies on direct complaints.
Research that Olshtain and Weinbach (1987, 1993) conducted offers one of the
most systematic analyses of cross-cultural and interlanguage features of direct
complaints. Their cross-cultural investigation of native speakers norms indicated that
American speakers, British English speakers, and Hebrew speakers employ similar
strategies (warning, complaint, and disapproval) when complaining in situations that are
socially unacceptable in all three cultures, such as littering, noise making, unpunctuality,
queue jumping, and petty stealing (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993, p. 113). The authors
asserted that the situation itself, and not language- or culture-specific norms, was a
significant factor in the strategy selection across cultures. It was also found that social
status affects the variability of the strategies (less vs. more severe) that native speakers of
Hebrew employed (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987).
Trosborg (1995) did another exemplary study on direct complaints and
investigated realization of requests, complaints and apologies from cross-cultural and
interlanguage perspectives. To explore interlanguage pragmatics of Danish speakers of
English at three proficiency levels, Trosborg first compared native speakers norms in a
complaint situation according to the parameters of social distance and social power. It
was found that native speakers of English employed more indirect strategies (hints) when
addressing a person of higher status than a person of lower status in order to show
politeness, which confirmed Olshtain and Weinbachs similar findings on complaints of
native speakers of Hebrew (1987). In contrast, native speakers of Danish did not select
more indirect strategies when addressing authority figures, but they used significantly
64
more supportive moves than English speakers (1995, p. 368). She concluded that
speakers across cultures differently perceive the parameter of social status and that social
distance was a negative predictor for a strategy choice in a complaint situation (1995, p.
372).
Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) also explored the effect of cultural and ethnic
values on the realization of the speech act of direct complaint by drawing on a study that
Hauser and Swindler (1988) conducted on direct complaints of Russian and Moroccan
immigrants in Israel. They found that speakers from both language groups differently
structured their complaints related to money, friendship, and parking, which reflected
their respective culture-specific values (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993, pp. 119-120).
Similarly, Gershensons interlanguage study (2003) on direct complaints
performed by Israelis, Russians and Russian immigrants in Israel showed that cultural
values affected their linguistic behavior in a complaint situation. It was found that
Russian speakers preferred indirectness, and, contrary to the authors expectations,
positive politeness expressed in playful expressions, such as jokes, irony, allusions, and
avoidance of questions20 (2003, p. 288). In contrast, Hebrew speakers preferred
directness and positive politeness conveyed in routine expressions and questions (p. 288).
As a result, Israelis perceived Russians as insincere and manipulative, while Russians
saw their new hosts as rude and pushy (p. 275). The author concluded that different
linguistic strategies that Russian and Hebrew speakers employed in complaints reflected
20
Gershenson (2003) explains that Russians avoid asking questions in complaints because questions are
treated as an intrusion, threatening to ones private information (p. 284) in Russian culture. However,
other studies show that Russians tend to ask personal questions to show their interest in others lives and
problems, which reflects culture-specific concepts (see Ogiermann, 2009b, p. 39).
65
their cultural values, which led to cross-cultural misunderstandings and even conflicts
between these two language groups.
None of the studies mentioned above examined gender as a factor that can affect
linguistic behavior in direct complaints. It is worth mentioning that Boxer (1993a)
conducted a thorough investigation of the effect of gender on complaints among
American speakers, which showed qualitative and quantitative differences between male
and female complaints, as well as gender-specific differences in reactions to complaints.
Despite an increasing number of empirical studies on speech acts across cultures,
the empirical data on direct complaints by Russian native and non-native speakers remain
scarce. A very recent contribution to cross-cultural studies on complaints is represented
by Kozlovas (2004) study on complaint behavior of American and Russian native
speakers in spontaneous conversations. However, she limited her investigation to indirect
complaints, whereas the present study focuses on direct complaints.
2.9.2. Interlanguage studies on direct complaints.
Studies on direct complaints in interlanguage pragmatics (Kasper, 1981; Olshtain
& Weinbach, 1987, 1993; Trosborg, 1995; Murphy & Neu, 1996; Moon, 2001; Kraft &
Geluykens, 2002, 2007; Tanck, 2002; Tran, 2002; Gershenson, 2003; Umar, 2006) have
shown qualitative and quantitative differences between learners and native speakers
production and comprehension of direct complaints.
Olshtain and Weinbach (1993) investigated pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic
features of direct complaints as performed by intermediate and advanced L2 learners of
Hebrew. Their study showed that learners produced longer utterances than native
speakers in order to negotiate the problem expressed in a complaint. Learners also

66
employed less severe strategies than native speakers, but they tended to use more
intensifiers in their complaints (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993, p. 115). An unexpected
finding was that learners were less concerned with politeness when a complaint was
based on legal or conventional obligations, for example, keeping quiet at night (p. 121).
Surprisingly for the authors, the study showed that the length of utterance and the
strategy selection were similarly distributed in both language groups according to
different types of social distance (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993, p. 117). Both native and
non-native speakers negotiated more by using more words with acquaintances than with
strangers or relatives, which confirmed Wolfsons Bulge Theory (1988). 21 It was also
found that speakers in both language groups differently perceived seriousness of offense
in some situations, which affected their strategy selection, which, in turn, was ascribed to
different cultural values (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993, p. 116).
A majority of interlanguage studies has investigated learners pragmatic
competence in English. Piotrowska (1987) focused her study on sociolinguistic
competence of Cantonese learners of English as a foreign language. Her study showed
that learners and native speakers complaints differed at the linguistic and strategic
levels when social distance and situational context were considered, which was attributed
to differences of sociocultural norms in both language groups. The author concluded that
Cantonese speakers of English need to better understand social rules governing the
strategy choice of English speakers in a complaint situation in order to successfully
negotiate with English native speakers (Piotrowska, 1987, p. 54).
21
According to Wolfsons Bulge Theory, interlocutors whose relationships are fixed, as in the case of
intimates, strangers or relatives negotiate less in performing speech acts than status-equal friends, co-
workers, and acquaintances, whose relationships are less certain (1988).
67
Arent (1996) drew similar conclusions in his study on sociopragmatic competence
of Chinese speakers of English as L2. It was found that Chinese speakers of English
complained to the authorities after they violated a parking ban and even tried to bargain
the fine, which is inappropriate in American culture. According to the author, the findings
showed a strong relationship between linguistic and cultural background and
sociopragmatic failure (Arent, 1996, p. 138). Arent concluded that non-native speakers
need to acquire sociocultural norms in the target language in order to achieve their
communicative goals with native speakers in a complaint situation.
A number of interlanguage studies have investigated learners pragmatic transfer
from their L1 in the speech act of complaint. In their study on direct complaints of native
speakers of French and German learners of French, Kraft and Geluykens (2002)
investigated directness, pragmatic transfer, and gender as a factor in a complaint
situation. It was found that learners complaints were significantly longer than those of
native speakers, which was attributed to learners attempt to compensate for potential
linguistic shortcomings by using repetitions and variations of strategies (Kraft &
Geluykens, 2002, p. 23). Moreover, contrary to the authors expectations, the findings
showed, on the whole, a lower degree of directness of learners complaints. The study
also provided some evidence that men complain differently than women, but the findings
did not support the authors hypothesis that male complaints are more direct (less polite)
than female complaints. The authors did not attribute any of the differences to learners
transfer from their L1. In a later study (2007), the authors found that gender of the
speaker and of the hearer affects the strategy choice (the use of downgraders and
upgraders) in a complaint situation. It was found that men used swear words and negative
68
address terms as upgraders more frequently than women, and the speakers (male and
female) applied more swear words when addressing a male hearer. The participants in the
study showed the same linguistic behavior in their use of upgraders with regard to the
gender factor in their L1 and in their interlanguage (Kraft & Geluykens, 2007, p. 155).
In his study on pragmatic transfer and discourse transfer in direct complaints of
Vietnamese learners of English, Tran (2002) found that non-native speakers used longer
complaints with a greater number of moves and hedges to soften the complaint (p. 83).
The findings also indicated that in most situations learners employed less severe
strategies than native speakers, except when they complained to friends. It was found that
social distance and cultural values in Vietnamese affect the learners strategy selection in
complaints in English (pp. 86-87). The author concluded that learners transfer
sociocultural norms from their L1 when they complain in the target language.
Gershensons (2003) analysis of complaints of Russian L2 learners of Hebrew in
Israel indicated that 60% of the learners complaints were evaluated as pragmatically
deviant from the native speakers norms due to differences at the strategic, linguistic
(directness), and stylistic levels (p. 285). The author found that the learners complaints
were more verbose, indirect, and playful than those of Hebrew speakers, which she
attributed to the learners transfer from Russian (p. 285). Gershenson concluded that the
learners linguistic behavior led to their pragmatic failure and cultural misunderstandings
with the native speakers.
Other studies on direct complaints have indicated that learners may have
difficulties choosing an appropriate linguistic politeness strategy in terms of directness
(Kasper, 1981; Trosborg, 1995; Murthy & Neu, 1996; Tanck, 2002). Trosborg (1995)
69
found that Danish learners of English used more severe strategies in their complaints than
native speakers of English; however, they expressed significantly fewer complaints than
native speakers. They also had difficulties using appropriate modality markers,
downgraders and upgraders to soften or to intensify their complaints, particularly with
reference to the parameters of social distance and social power (Trosborg, 1995, p. 358).
As a result, the learners complaints were less polite and less effective than those of the
native speakers.
Similarly, while investigating communicative competence of German learners of
English, Kasper (1981) found that the non-native speakers complaints were more severe
(more direct) than those of native speakers when they interacted with each other in role-
play dialogs. Moreover, learners had difficulty choosing appropriate modality markers
and modal verbs in English. Unlike native speakers, they preferred intensifiers in direct
complains, which was attributed to their linguistic behavior in their L1 (Kasper, 1981, p.
165). The learners complaints were perceived by native speakers as a negative behavior,
and, consequently, they led to their pragmatic failure (Kasper, 1981, p. 165).
Murthy and Neu (1996) studied how American native speakers and Korean
learners of English expressed disappointment about their grade to an American professor.
It was found that speakers in both language groups performed two different speech acts:
American speakers performed a complaint by partially taking responsibility for the
wrongdoing, while Korean learners expressed criticism by holding the professor
responsible for the problem. The learners employed the second person with the modal
should, personalized the problem, and refused responsibility for the situation (Murphy &
Neu, 1996, p. 205), which American speakers evaluated as aggressive, challenging,

70
lacking credibility, and inappropriate (p. 210). Murthy and Neu concluded that
appropriate linguistic choices in complaints may facilitate negotiations among
interlocutors, while inappropriate sociolinguistic behavior can negatively affect
negotiations and lead to a conflict. Therefore, L2 learners need to learn linguistic
strategies that are appropriate in complaints in an academic setting so that they can
achieve their communicative goals without being perceived as rude or aggressive (pp.
211-212).
Like Murthy and Neu (1996), Tanck (2002) found in her study on direct
complaints and refusals of non-native speakers of English with various L1 that learners
linguistic behavior was inappropriate for an academic setting in American culture. The
findings showed that learners structured their complaints similarly to native speakers, but
they used less appropriate strategies (too direct and even controversial) than native
speakers of English. Tanck concluded that learners may produce grammatically correct
utterances in complaints, but they may be socially and culturally inappropriate, revealing
learners lack of pragmatic competence.
Some studies have revealed learners pragmatic failure due to limited linguistic
competence. Moon (2001) observed in her study on direct complaints of non-native
speakers of English that when showing disappointment to a person of higher status (a
boss), the learners linguistic strategies were more explicit and controversial than those of
non-native speakers and sounded like criticism, not complaints. It was found that
learners limitations of linguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge resulted in their
inappropriate complaints. Moon concluded that learners need to improve their linguistic
71
and sociopragmatic competence in order to successfully communicate with native
speakers in a complaint situation.
Recently, Umars (2006) study on direct complaints of advanced Sudanese
learners of English showed that learners lack the pragmatic competence to produce
appropriate complaints in the target language. It was found that learners complaints
differ from those of the native speakers at the linguistic and sociopragmatic levels when
social distance and severity of offense were considered (Umar, 2006, p. 22). The
differences in learners linguistic behavior were attributed to cultural norms (the value of
friendship), pragmatic transfer (the use of the imperative), and limited linguistic
competence (Umar, 2006, p. 34).
2.10. Conclusion
As the above-mentioned studies in the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage
pragmatics have indicated, speakers across cultures differ in their realization and
perception of direct complaints due to language- and culture-specific norms, which, in
turn, affect the performance and perception of learners complaints in the target language.
Research in interlanguage pragmatics has shown that learners complaints differ from
native speakers norms in terms of strategy selection, linguistic choices and perception of
severity of offense, which are often determined by social factors (social distance, social
status, social obligations) and cultural values. More studies are needed to determine the
effect of gender on complaints.
As research has demonstrated, the discrepancies between native and non-native
speakers norms often indicate learners limited linguistic competence and their lack of
72
pragmatic competence, expressed in their inability to produce socially and culturally
appropriate complaints in the target language (Tanck, 2002, p. 1). The deviations from
native speakers norms in complaints may also result from learners negative transfer
from L1. As a result, learners pragmatic inappropriateness may lead to their pragmatic
failure and even conflicts in the target language community.
The research that is proposed here will provide thorough insights into realization
of the speech act of direct complaint as performed by American native speakers of
English, Russian native speakers, and American learners of Russian by exploring the
interaction of the following factors in each language group: severity of offense, social
distance, social power, gender, and proficiency level (the latter in the case of American
learners of Russian).
73
Chapter 3: Methodology and Data Collection
This chapter first briefly reviews various data collection methods employed in
research on speech acts. It next describes the design of the present study by focusing on
the participant profile and the methodology of data elicitation. The methodology will be
followed by a description of transcription procedures employed to record the oral data of
native- and non-native speakers. Moreover, this section will present the coding system
developed by Schaefer (1982) and expanded by Piotrowska (1987), which served as a
foundation for the taxonomy of direct complaints in the present study.
This chapter also describes the taxonomy of directness that Blum-Kulka et al.
(1989) developed in CCSARP with Trosborgs (1995) modifications for direct
complaints, which are employed in the present study. At the end of this chapter, Owens
taxonomy of directness (2001) will be presented since her modified taxonomy was
utilized for the analysis of directness in the Russian data.
3.2. Data Collection Methods in Speech Acts Studies
Empirical research on speech acts in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics
uses various methods to collect data from native and non-native speakers. Experimenters
collect data either ethnographically or experimentally by taking into account strengths
and weaknesses of each method, which potentially can affect outcomes of their studies.
Ethnographic data are collected in natural settings and encompass the
experimenters observation of naturally occurring speech, interviews with participants,
and artifacts such as field notes and diaries (Kasper & Rose, 2002). Although
74
ethnographically collected data capture natural speech in a given language and culture,
there are some shortcomings of the methodology. In natural environments, some
variables (e.g., age, social status, severity of offense, the sample population) are difficult
and even impossible to control (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Cohen, 1996a). Moreover,
the ethnographic method presents certain problems with tape or video recording of the
participants. On the one hand, participants cannot be tape or video recorded without their
permission; on the other hand, if participants know that they are recorded, they are likely
to change their natural linguistic behavior (Beebe & Cummings, 1996; Kasper & Rose,
2002). Data collected ethnographically can also be recorded in the form of field notes;
this method, however, leads to some problems with accuracy of the data because dialogs
or speech of the participants that the experimenter reconstructs are likely to be inaccurate
in terms of actual linguistic strategies that the interlocutors employed (Beebe &
Cummings, 1996; Kasper & Rose, 2002). Furthermore, contextual variables cannot be
controlled in the ethnographic method because there is no guarantee that the same
situations will occur more than once (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989; Trosborg, 1995). While
exploring some speech acts, such as apologies or complaints, it can also be very time-
consuming to gather the needed data of native and non-native speakers in natural settings
(Cohen, 1996a). Therefore, the collection of ethnographic data is not a preferred method
in cross-cultural and interlanguage studies on speech acts.
Few scholars have analyzed complaints in natural settings. Boxer (1993c)
conducted one of the largest studies based on ethnographic methods and analyzed
indirect complaints in spontaneous speech of native speakers of English. Her study
encompassed 533 complaint exchanges, which were tape recorded or written down in the
75
form of field notes. In addition, 10 participants at a large university in the US took part in
ethnographic interviews to evaluate the indirect complaints that the author obtained in
the first part of the study. Similarly, Kozlova (2004) compared indirect complaints of
Russian native speakers and American speakers of English, whose conversations were
tape recorded in natural settings.
Most scholars in pragmatics employ experimental methods that allow controlling
and comparing variables, but they do not necessarily reflect participants natural
linguistic behavior. In an experimental study design, experimenters can elicit oral or
written data by employing various instruments. Oral data can be obtained in elicited
conversations or interviews in which participants maintain their own identity (Kasper &
Roever, 2005). An alternative to elicited conversations and interviews are role-plays, in
which an experimenter or a tester interacts with participants by acting out various roles.
Role-plays are often employed in interlanguage pragmatics research because they imitate
real-life encounters and elicit various speech acts. A desired speech act can be elicited
through a one-turn response in closed role-plays or over numerous turns in open role-
plays (Kasper & Rose, 2002). However, some participants perceive role-play situations as
artificial and difficult to engage in because of different identities that the experimenter
and the participant usually need to adopt during the same setting (Owen, 2001; Kasper &
Roever, 2005; Shardakova, 2009). Moreover, as some interlanguage studies showed, the
testers or the experimenters age, gender and social status can affect the participants
responses, which may differ from those that the participants chose in real life (Owen,
2001; Shardakova, 2009). Owen (2001) also pointed out that learners language strategies
may result from their avoidance of making mistakes or from the testers linguistic
76
behavior, which can affect the participants responses. Nevertheless, research has shown
that role-plays can be used as an effective method to elicit various speech acts in an
experimental environment (e.g., Frank, 2002). To better understand participants
linguistic choices in role-play situations, Cohen (1996a) has suggested verbal reports as
the most important strategy that can add insights regarding the cognitive processes and
conscious strategies (p. 40) of the participants.
Trosborg (1995) has utilized an experimental study design based on oral role-
plays in her study on direct complaints of Danish learners of English as a foreign
language at the secondary, high school, and university levels as compared to Danish
native speakers and English native speakers. Ariel (1996) elicited direct complaints of
Chinese learners of English as L2 in oral responses to three situations in closed role-
plays, which were audio-taped and combined with a written assessment questionnaire and
the participants verbal report. Similarly, Piotrowska (1987) employed role-plays to elicit
direct complaints of Cantonese learners of English as a foreign language.
One of the most widely used experimental methods in pragmatics research is a
written discourse completion task (DCT), which was established by the authors in the
CCSARP (1989), and it has been broadly replicated by other scholars in their studies on
speech acts. In the CCSARP, the DCT consisted of 16 situations featuring requests and
apologies, which were followed by an incomplete dialog for a participants written
reaction (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). As most scholars have emphasized, the
greatest advantage of this instrument is that questionnaires can produce a large number of
data in a short period of time. The design of questionnaires also allows for the exploring a
desired speech act in various contexts by manipulating social and contextual variables
77
(Cohen, 1996a). Moreover, questionnaires can be translated into different languages;
thus, they enable data collection from participants with different linguistic and cultural
backgrounds (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989). For these reasons, DCT is a preferable method
in cross-cultural studies.
In studies on direct complaints, numerous scholars (Olshtain & Weinbach, 1987,
1993; Bonikowska, 1988; Moon, 2001; Tran, 2002; Kraft and Geluykens, 2002, 2007;
Umar, 2006) have employed discourse completion tasks or discourse completion
questionnaires (DCQs), as they are called by some scholars. Those scholars utilized open-
ended questionnaires, in which they provided participants with a detailed description of a
situation, followed by a space for their written response. In her study, Bonikowska (1988)
combined DCT with the participants self-report in order to obtain their explanations for
why they responded to a given situation or why they decided not to react. Tanck (2002)
used DCTs to elicit written responses to six situations featuring direct complaints and
refusals by providing a detailed situation; the situation was then followed by an
interlocutors reaction and a blank for the participants response. Gershenson (2003)
employed 12 situations in DCT. These situations were evaluated similarly by Russian and
Israeli participants in a Situation Assessment Test which preceded the DCT. The author
also interviewed and audio taped participants after they completed the DTC.
Some scholars, however, have questioned the validity of written responses to
DCTs as a representation of spoken language. In their study on refusals, Beebe and
Cummings (1996) compared DCTs to naturally occurring data in phone interactions and
found that written role plays bias the response toward less negotiation, less hedging, less
repetition, less elaboration, less variety and ultimately less talk (p. 71), while oral data
78
are longer, more repetitive, more complex, and show a greater variation in the number of
semantic formulas and strategy selection (p. 75). Beebe and Cummings also claimed that
the main difference between both methods results from the fact that DCTs do not reveal
the emotional depth of the interlocutors involved in a social interaction (p. 80).
Different results were shown in Rintell and Mitchells (1989) study on comparing
written data in DCTs to oral data obtained in closed role-plays to requests and apologies
of native and non-native speakers. In the conclusions of their study, the authors stated
that both methods produced similar language although in some situations native and non-
native speakers were more direct in their written responses. Moreover, significant
differences were found between written and oral responses that non-native speakers
produced (Rintell & Mitchell, 1989, pp. 270-271).
In sum, more research is needed to compare written and oral data collection
methods. Regardless of the limitations of the written data collection method, as many
scholars have pointed out, DCTs are a good instrument to explore cultural values
reflected in speech acts (Beebe & Cummings, 1996), and semantic strategies and
linguistic structures that are frequently employed in speech act realization (Beebe and
Cummings, 1996; Kasper & Roever, 2005). As Kasper and Rose (2000) pointed out:
[W]hen carefully designed, DCTs provide useful information about speakers
pragmalinguistic knowledge [italic in the original] of the strategies and linguistic
forms by which communicative acts can be implemented, and about their
sociopragmatic knowledge [italic in the original] of the context factors under
which particular strategic and linguistic choices are appropriate. (pp. 95-96)
79
As some scholars have suggested, various methods should be combined to elicit reliable
data on speech acts since each method has different strengths (Cohen & Olshtain, 1994).
The present study utilizes the methodology that Murphy and Neu (1996)
employed in their interlanguage study on direct complaints. They collected the data via
oral responses to a discourse completion task consisting of one hypothetical situation in
which a student complained to the professor about an unfair grade. The determining
factor in employing Murphy and Neus methodology was that their method allows
participants to react to the scenarios orally, which is closer to their natural language than
written responses to DCTs. As some scholars have emphasized, written tasks also
activate different cognitive processes than those that oral tasks trigger, which can affect
the outcomes of the study (Cohen & Olshtain, 1994). Moreover, the participants in
Murphy and Neus study were left alone to complete the oral task, which allowed them to
respond as they wished to the situation under investigation without being influenced by
the tester. Obviously, there was no interaction with another speaker, which was the
greatest weakness of this methodology. On balance, however, Murthy and Neus
methodology used in the present study can provide more authentic data than the
alternative method requiring an interaction with a tester, which would involve acting out
various identities by the tester and the participant during the same setting. The power
relationship between participant and tester is difficult for the participant to ignore in a
role play.
80
3.3. Study Design
3.3.1. Participant profile.
The data was elicited from a homogenous population for each language group
among university students of college age. There were 130 participants engaged in the
project, but responses from only 97 participants were included in the final analysis. In the
final subject group there were an equal number (15/15) of male and female participants
for the American speakers and Russian speakers, and an unequal number (14/23) of male
and female participants in the learner group. Participants were excluded from the study if
they came from a mixed heritage background. In addition, participants who failed to
complete the assessment questionnaires, skipped situations in their oral responses without
giving reasons for doing so, and used indirect structures instead of direct were eliminated
from the study. Two learners participated in the study twice over an eight month period
of time; in these cases the later period of study in Russia was included in the analysis.
American speakers (henceforth abbreviated as ASs) were randomly recruited
among undergraduate and graduate students at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges at the
end of the spring semester of 2010 and in the fall semester of 2010. Male students were
also recruited at Swarthmore College in the spring semester of 2011. An equal number of
male and female participants were represented in the group. This group encompassed
college students in the age range of 18 to 22. They represented various majors at these
three colleges and came from various geographic regions in the USA. The native
language of all American speakers was American English, and all spoke only English at
home. No bilingual students were included in the final analysis. Almost all participants
had some experience with one or more foreign languages at school and/or college.
81
Russian native speakers (henceforth abbreviated as RSs) were randomly recruited
at Moscow State University in Moscow in the spring semester of 2010 and at Herzen
State Pedagogical University in Saint Petersburg in the fall semester of 2010. Three male
students in Saint Petersburg came from other universities as well because they were
interested in the study. The group of Russian native speakers was homogenous. The
Russian native speakers, who were included in the final project, were represented by
male and female students in the age range of 17 to 24. Their native language was
Russian, and they spoke only Russian at home. Their Russian language reflected the
language of an educated Russian speaker. All of them studied foreign languages at high
school or/and at the university, but none of them was bilingual. They represented various
regions in Russia. Most participants were from Saint Petersburg with some from
Moscow, and individual participants were from peripheral cities and regions, including
Kursk, Severodvinsk, Chernuska (Permskij region), Surgut, Pskov, Altajskij Kraj, and the
Republic Mari El.
American L2 learners of Russian (henceforth abbreviated as L2 learners) were
randomly recruited among students who started studying Russian at the college level (in
few cases, the participants learned Russian at high school) and participated in the study
abroad program in Russia under the auspices of the American Council of Teachers of
Russian (ACTR). Students, who enrolled in the language program for the fall of 2010 and
the spring semester of 2011 at Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia in Saint
Petersburg, Moscow International University in Moscow, and the KORA Center in
Vladimir, participated in the study near the end of their language program. Moreover, L2
learners with the study abroad experience were recruited in the Russian department at
82
Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges during the spring semester of 2010 and the fall
semester of 2011. Those students were also enrolled in the domestic Flagship program
and studied in Russia under the auspices of ACTR in the fall semester of 2009, and in the
spring and fall semesters of 2010. The learners group encompassed college students in
the age range of 20 to 24, with three Flagship students who were older (27, 31 and 39
years old). Given the age relative homogeneity of the participant group, age was not
treated as a separate variable in the present study; thus, none of the differences
established within each culture and across cultures were attributed to the age of the
participants. Table 1 reflects the demographic distribution of ASs, RSs, and L2 learners
with reference to the number of the participants and their gender.
Table 1
Demographic Distribution of American Speakers of English (AS), Russian Native

Speakers (RS), and American Learners of Russian (L2)
Gender AS RS L2
Male 15 15 14
Female 15 15 23
Total 30 30 37
The learners group consisted of students who started their study abroad program
at the proficiency level ranging from Intermediate-Mid to Advanced-Mid, with two
students at the Advanced-High level. The sublevels of the Intermediate and Advanced
levels were not considered in the study. Henceforth, the study refers to an Intermediate
group and an Advanced group. The learners proficiency levels were established for the
ACTR by certified testers who administered the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) to the
students before their departure to Russia. In the case of three male students, their pre-
83
program OPI scores were based on their most recent OPI scores in December 2010.
These participants did not have their pre-program OPI scores because they started their
program abroad in the summer. Table 2 shows the distribution of the learners gender and
their proficiency level according to their pre-program OPI scores.
Table 2
Distribution of the Learners Gender and their Proficiency Levels According to the Pre-
Program OPI Scores
Learners Gender Learners Proficiency Level

Intermediate Level Advanced Level
Male 8 6
Female 17 6
Total 25 12
3.3.2. Elicitation of the data.
3.3.2.1. Oral discourse completion questionnaire.
To elicit data, an open-ended oral discourse completion questionnaire (DCQ)
followed by an assessment questionnaire were administered to participants in all three
language groups. The DCQ consisted of fifteen scenarios (twelve featured complaints and
three evoked other speech acts; two of them were used at the beginning of the DCQ so
that the participants could get used to recording their responses and become comfortable
with the elicitation procedure itself, see Appendix A).
Before participants in all language groups began completing their tasks related to
the questionnaires, they signed a consent form and filled out a demographic survey,
which provided basic information about each participant (see Appendix D and Appendix
F). All of the materials used in the study were first designed in English, and then
translated into Russian. The questionnaires in both languages were discussed with native
84
speakers to ensure cultural and linguistic appropriateness. The situations in DCQs were
adjusted to each culture, which resulted in small differences in the translation, for
example: Spilling coffee in American culture was replaced with dropping ice cream in
Russian culture; paying for a taxi in dollars in American culture was translated as paying
the equivalent in rubles in Russian culture; the term professor in English was translated
as , teacher, with the first name and patronymic in Russian; receiving a
C as a final grade in situations for American speakers was translated into Russian as
receiving a bad grade for the entire semester.
The scenarios in DCQs were provided in English for American speakers and in
Russian for Russian native speakers. The situations for American learners of Russian
were described in English and in Russian to ensure learners understanding. In all
language groups, each scenario included a short description of the situation, which
specified the context (coded for degree of imposition), the social distance (coded for
degree of familiarity), and the relative social power between the speaker and the hearer
(coded for social status) by featuring communication with a friend, a stranger, and a
person of an unequal status. Table 3 shows the distribution of social variables in
situations featuring the direct complaints.
Table 3
Distribution of Social Variables in Situations Featuring Direct Complaints
Social Interaction with Interaction with a Interaction with a Interaction with a

distance a friend stranger (S) professor (P) person whom the
(abbreviated as speaker hired (H)
F)
Social S=H S=H (S) S<H (L) S>H (H)

Power (abbreviated as
S) (the social status (the social status
of the speaker is
85
of the speaker is higher than the

(the same social lower than the status of the
status between status of the hearer)
the speaker (S) hearer)
and the hearer
(H))
With regard to the content of the scenarios, the researcher created situations for
which a complaint seems to be a natural reaction in both cultures; some scenarios draw
on previous studies on direct complaints. The thorough description of each scenario
allowed the researcher to control the sociocultural variables in order to conduct a
statistical analysis. The situations were paired according to severity of offense and
hearers gender; however, the participants evaluation of the severity of offense and not
the researchers perception of the severity was considered for statistical analyses. In order
to control the gender variable in the study, the participants addressed a male and a female
interlocutor for moderate or severe offense in each type of social distance (Kraft &
Geluykens, 2007); however, the gender of the imaginary interlocutor in the scenarios was
not considered for the final statistical analyses. The scenarios featuring different social
status did not include gender variation in order to avoid undesired complexity of the
study. Table 4 shows the distribution of the situations featuring direct complaints
according to the gender of the hearer, social distance, and severity of offense (see a
complete description of each scenario in English and in Russian in Appendix A).

86
Table 4
Distribution of Complaint Situations According to the Gender, Social Distance, and

Severity of Offense
Description of the scenario Gender of the Severity of Title of the

hearer/Social offense scenario
distance
1. Ann, you friend, borrowed a library Female /Friend Moderate Library Fine
book from you that was checked out
in your name. She returns it to you
late, and now you have to pay the
fine in the library.
2. You have been working together with Male/Friend Severe Late for
your friend Boris on a project for Project
your statistics class that is due
tomorrow. Each time, your friend
comes to the meeting late. Today,
you have been waiting for him for
over 30 minutes. Now, in order to
finish it, you will be late for your
evening part-time job. Finally, he is
there.
3. You lent your friend money that she Female/Friend Severe Paying Rent
was supposed to return at the
beginning of this month. It is already
the end of the month, and Sarah has
not returned the money yet. You need
your money back because you need
to pay the rent for your apartment.
4. You have already talked a few times Male/Friend Moderate Dirty Dishes
to Andrew, your friend and
roommate, about taking care of the
kitchen that you share with him in the
dormitory apartment. Today, he again
left a pile of dirty dishes in the sink
although it was his turn to take care
of the kitchen.
87
5. You have a new neighbor next door Male/Stranger Severe Loud Music
in the dormitory. You dont know
him yet. Since he moved in five days
ago, he has been listening to loud
music every night. You already
overslept once, and you were late for
work. Today, you cannot sleep
because the music is loud again. It is
already midnight, and you have a
terrible headache.
6. It is Christmas time. You are in a Female/Strang Moderate Cutting Line

grocery store waiting in a line for er
over 30 minutes. A woman cuts a line
in the front of you although she
clearly saw you.
7. You are in a taxi driving from the Male/Stranger Moderate Taxi Fee
airport to your hotel. You do not
know the city, but, based on the
information from the hotel
receptionist, the taxi would cost you
no more than 30 dollars. When you
arrive at the hotel, the taxi driver asks
you for almost 70 dollars.
8. In one hour, you are having a job Female/Strang Severe Subway

interview. Now, you are entering the er
subway station. At that moment, a
woman also rushes to the entrance
and spills coffee on your new white
shirt.
9. Your English professor included Male/Professor Severe Bad Grade

material on the final oral exam that
was not covered in the class, and, as a
result, you got a low grade on the
exam, which caused you to receive a
C instead of a B as a final grade.
You are not satisfied with your grade,
and you believe that you deserve a
better one.
88
10. Your professor agreed to meet you 30 Male/Professor Moderate Missed

minutes before the class starts in Meeting
order to discuss some preliminary
ideas about your masters thesis. You
were waiting for him, but,
unfortunately, he did not come.
11. You provide translation services to Male/ Status Severe Translation

finance your studies at the university. Unequal Services
This month, you hired Vania, another
student, because you got a large
project to translate. Unfortunately,
Vania didnt return his part of the
translation to you on time. As a
result, you were not able to finish the
project on time. The client got angry
with you, and has decided not to use
your services anymore.
12. You hired a tutor to help you with Male/Status Moderate Tutor
mathematics. He knows the subject Unequal
very well, but he covers the material
too fast. You already asked him to do
less during each meeting. Today, you
again do not understand his
explanation because of the amount of
material covered.
To approach authentic discourse, participants in the DCQ were not asked to adopt
a different identity, but they were instructed to respond to the described scenarios from
their own perspective. Although there is no guarantee that the participants will react in
the same way in real life as they did in the controlled situation, the scenarios presented
complaint situations that are typical and frequent in everyday life. In this way, the
participants can base their responses on similar prior experience rather than attempting to
imagine an unfamiliar complaint situation.

89
The participants were asked to carefully read each scenario and to voice their
reaction into a tape recorder. They were instructed to react spontaneously, but they were
not instructed to complain. They also had a choice not to say anything, if in real life they
would not give any response. The participants were instructed not to use indirect
strategies, such as () or I would say, but direct strategies, as if they are
talking to the interlocutor. Each participant was instructed on how to start and finish
his/her recording and was left alone to complete the oral task. All participants in the study
received the same instructions: In 2010, the participants in Vladimir were instructed by
the researcher in a written form, the participants in Saint Petersburg were instructed by
the researcher herself, and the participants in Moscow received the instructions from the
researchers assistant. In 2011, five participants in Saint Petersburg were instructed by the
researcher in the written form. The participants responses were later transcribed by the
researcher.
It was expected that the responses to the DCQs would provide linguistic and
strategic preferences for performing the speech act set of direct complaint by the three
language groups according to social constraints and individual variability of the
participants (gender; Olshtain & Blum-Kulka, 1985). Although there was no interaction
between the tester /the researcher and the participants, it was assumed that the oral data
would provide sequential development of direct complaints, which would allow
analyzing the speech act set at the structural and discursive levels since interlocutors
usually carry out a complaint over several turns.

90
3.3.2.2. Assessment questionnaire.
To assess the participants sociopragmatic level, an assessment questionnaire was
included in the study. Immediately after finishing their oral task, the participants filled
out the assessment questionnaire, in which they rated on a 3-point scale the context-
internal factors (severity of offense and the obligation to complain) in the same situations
to which they reacted in oral (see Appendix B). The participants responses in the
assessment questionnaire enabled the researcher to evaluate their sociopragmatic skill.
They also provided information about how the participants felt while completing the oral
task, and how they evaluated the data collection method (see Appendix B and Appendix
C). The design of the assessment questionnaire draws on previous studies (Shardakova,
2009)
3.3.3. Additional evaluation of learners complaints.
In order to ensure the nativelike appropriateness of the learners responses at the
sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels, two native speakers of Russian were asked to
evaluate the responses to the DCQs of the L2 learners (see Appendix H). The two native
speakers were graduate students in philology at Herzen State Pedagogical University in
Saint Petersburg, Russia.
3.4. Transcription of the Data
3.4.1. Transcription procedures.
The transcription procedures employed to record the oral data in all language
groups draw on techniques that Owen (2001, pp. 61-64) used in her study on requests in
91
Russian. In the present study, the transcription marked finished and unfinished sentences,
pauses longer than one second, and fillers, such as um and their Russian equivalents.
Some punctuation notations, such as periods, question marks or exclamation marks were
generally retained because of their significance for the analysis, indicating complete
statements, questions, or exclamations, and also the participants emotional state by
showing irony, sarcasm, disappointment or humor). Other punctuation notations, such as
commas, semicolons or colons were omitted because their presence in the written data
was not relevant for the analysis.
Colons, however, were used to mark pauses; each colon equals a one second-long
pause:
Example 1. AS (Late for Project): Boris you know I:: Im really sorry
Example 2. L2 (Late for Project): ::: ::
- :::
[Um::: I dont know you (informal):: we agreed well to meet a- at six::: it is
already six]
A dash was used to indicate a word not finished by the participant:
Example 3. L2 (Dirty Dishes): - -
[well wash these dirty dish- dishes a- well in the sink]
Non-linguistic sounds, such as a click of the tongue, cough or yawn were omitted in the
transcription. Sighs and laughter were indicated in parenthesis:
Example 4. AS (Dirty Dishes): I mean Im not your mother (laughter)
Example 5. L2 (Subway): () aaaa-.

92
[(Sigh) I dont know aaaa-.]
Words or phrases that the participants emphasized were highlighted:
Example 6. AS (Taxi Fee): Sir it is not seventy dollars (laughter)
Words that could not be understood were marked by four question marks (????):
Example 7. AS (Taxi Fee): if e- we negotiate it on the thirty-dollar price that has
been set (????)
3.4.2. Marking learners errors.
Learners grammatical mistakes, such as wrong case markers, incorrect number or
gender of nouns and their modifiers, and wrong conjugational endings were marked in
italics. In Example 1, the italics show an incorrect form of the personal pronoun:
Example 1. (Missed Meeting):
[today I was waiting for you (dative instead of accusative) in the department]
English words that L2 learners used in their Russian speech were kept in Latin
letters:
Example 2. (Taxi Fee): yes?
[Two thousand rubles yes?]
Learners errors in pronunciation, stress, and intonation (falling intonation instead of
rising, or vice versa) were capitalized:
Example 4. (Late for Project): - :: .
[we a- should work with:: other people]
In this example, the capitalized Y indicates that the L2 pronounced a hard vowel instead
of its soft counterpart and also stressed the word incorrectly.
Words that were inaudible were marked by four question marks:

93
Example 5. (Paying Rent): - - (????)
[I would be very somehow grateful to you (informal/genitive or accusative) you
(informal/dative) (????)]
3.5. Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Analyses of the Data
Data analysis is divided into two parts: cross-cultural, ASs vs. RSs, and
interlanguage, RSs vs. L2 learners. In the cross-cultural analysis, the taxonomy of the
speech act set of direct complaints of ASs and RSs was established, and the structural
patterns of learners complaints were compared to those of ASs and RSs. To identify the
taxonomy of direct complaints of native speakers, the present study adopted the previous
classifications of direct complaints established by Schaefer (1982) and expanded by
Piotrowska (1987), as well as Murthy & Neus (1996) taxonomy of direct complaints.
Furthermore, within the cross-cultural analysis, the opt-out situations and the supportive
moves were analyzed separately.
Within the interlanguage analysis, the directness level of complaints and request
strategies were fist analyzed to ascertain similarities and differences between L2 learners
and RSs. To code and analyze the level of directness, this study utilizes a framework
developed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) in the CCSARP for request perspectives,
Trosborgs (1995) taxonomy of complaint perspectives, and Owens (2001) taxonomy of
directness in Russian. Next, the differences between the two language groups were
established based on the number of words and moves (when one move stands for one
semantic category, such as Opener, Apology, Gratitude). Then, the L2 learners and RSs
were compared according to the frequency of downgraders and upgraders to explore the
94
linguistic reservoir that the L2 learners employed to mitigate or to intensify complaints.
The analyses in the interlanguage investigation took into consideration social distance,
social power and severity of offense. Moreover, within the interlanguage investigation,
the effect of gender and of learners proficiency level on complaints at the structural,
linguistic and discourse levels have been analyzed; the latter focused on lexicon and
syntax.
To establish cross-cultural and interlanguage differences in complaints,
qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed. Statistical analyses were
conducted primarily in the interlanguage investigation.
3.6. Coding System
3.6.1. Coding system and taxonomy of directness established in the CCSARP.
The coding system and the taxonomy of directness developed by authors in the
CCSARP project have been utilized as a general framework for the analysis of directness
in the present study.
As part of the analysis of the speech act patterns of request and apology, the
CCSARP team developed a coding system based on major categories and subcategories
(Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, pp. 199-200). The CCSARP team established primary
categories or dimensions of the coding system based on the function and the importance
of each utterance or sequence for the realization of the speech act under investigation.
They divided the sequences into alerters, such as address terms, head acts, and adjunct(s)
to the head act by identifying the head act as that part of the sequence which might
serve to realize the act independently of other elements (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984,
95
p. 200). According to the authors, the head act may be separated from other sequences
and still be understood as a request or apology; thus, it carries the minimal and the
essential component of the speech act under investigation. The adjuncts, also called
supportive moves, fulfill a function of mitigating or intensifying the speech act under
investigation. As Blum-Kulka et al. (1984) emphasized, the distinction between head acts
and adjuncts/supportive moves can be problematic because the same sequence can be
used by two different speakers as an adjunct to the head act, or it may serve as the head
act itself (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 200). The following examples, cited by
Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, demonstrate the difficulty in distinguishing the head acts and
supportive moves:
Situation 1
A: Would you mind cleaning up the kitchen? / You left it in a mess last night.
B: OK. Ill clean it up.
Situation 2
A: You left the kitchen in a mess last night.
B2: OK, Ill clean it up. (1984, p. 200)
As the examples show, the same sequence that two different speakers used in the
same context can support the head act to strengthen the request, as in Situation 1, or it can
become the head act itself, as Situation 2 demonstrates. The authors concluded that the
distribution between the head acts and adjuncts depends on sequential, as well as
contextual and functional criteria (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 200).
Moreover, Blum-Kulka et al. (1984) developed a scale of directness based on
three major levels of directness, which were further subdivided into nine sublevels, called
96
strategy types. 22 According to the authors, there are three main levels of directness. The
first is the most direct, explicit level, which is expressed by imperatives, performatives
and hedged performatives, the latter according to Frasers (1975) terminology, as stated
by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain. Next is the conventionally indirect level. The strategies
used at this level were identified by Searle (1975) as indirect speech acts. In the case of
request, Could you do this? or Would you do this? represent the conventionally indirect
level. Finally, there is the non-conventional indirect level, which can be expressed by
various indirect strategies (hints), for example, in the case of request, Why is the window
open? or Its cold in here (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 201). Furthermore, the
authors distinguished the following categories (perspectives), based on the linguistic
repertoire within the head acts: hearer-oriented, for example, Could you tidy up the
kitchen soon?; speaker-oriented, for example, Do you think I could borrow your notes
from yesterdays class?; speaker and hearer oriented, for example, So, could we please
clean up?; and impersonal (the use of people/they/one or the use of passive structures;
Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 203).
To assess the level of politeness, the authors in CCSARP identified mitigating
strategies expressed through downgraders that can lessen the imposition upon the hearer
and upgraders that can intensify the speech act under investigation (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1984). They identified the mitigating and intensifying strategies within the head
acts as internal modifications and those within the supportive moves as external
modifications (p. 204).
22
The strategy types will not be presented here because they were not employed in the present study. The
strategies can be found in Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984, p. 202.
97
3.6.2. Taxonomy of direct complaints of American speakers of English and

Russian native speakers.
To establish taxonomy of the speech act set of direct complaints of ASs and RSs,
the present study draws on the speech act set of direct complaints, which Schaefer (1982)
established in his study on oral complaints of English speakers and Piotrowska (1987)
expanded in her investigation of sociolinguistic competence of learners of English at
Hong Kong University. The classification of direct complaints that Murthy and Neu
(1996) established was also taken into consideration. These classifications have been
utilized in this project because they allowed the researcher to capture differences in
structural patterns of complains between the three language groups under investigation,
whereas other taxonomies such as those developed by Trosborg (1995) or Olshtain and
Weinbach (1993) were too broad to reveal the cross-cultural differences between ASs and
RSs.
The present study has established the following semantic components of the
speech act set of direct complaints of ASs and RSs:
1. Opener23 (An utterance that opens the speech act.)
AS (Paying Rent): Hi Sarah!
RS (Translation Services): ! [Hi Vania!]
2. Explanation of Purpose (The speaker explains the purpose of initiating a
conversation.)
AS (Library Fine): Can you talk to me about the library book that you- that you
borrowed from me?
23
The names of the categories and most of the descriptions were adopted from Schaefers work (1982, pp.
14-15) and Piotrowskas analysis (1987, pp. 44-46) on complaints. The category, Explanation of Purpose,
was adopted from Murthy and Neus (1996) taxonomy.
98
RS (Bad Grade): .
[I would like to talk to you about the grade for the seminar.] 24
3. Act Statement (An utterance that states the problem directly by referring to
the wrongdoing, the hearer, or both. The present study identifies these utterances
as on-record strategies. This category also encompasses off-record utterances25
that show the inconvenience resulting from the hearers wrongdoing without an
explicit reference to the hearer or to the wrongdoing.)
AS (Dirty Dishes): This is your- these are your dishes right there.
RS (Library Fine): - - ?
. [Why didnt you return the book to me earlier?
Now I need to pay a fine for you.]
AS (Late for Project): I actually have a job I need to go to:: soon. (off-record)
RS (Paying Rent): :: .(off-
record) [I that is:: (I) need to pay for the apartment now urgently.]
4. Justification of the Speaker (An utterance explaining why the speaker is
making the complaint and the effects of the wrongdoing on the speaker.)
AS (Late for Project): because I- I really dont- I really cannot afford to be late
to my job.
RS (Paying Rent): -
- . [Now (it is) already the end of the month and I still need to
somehow pay for the apartment.]
24
The translation of Russian examples is intended to be literal to convey the speakers word choice and
word order.
25
The off-record expressions constituting the Act Statement were added by the researcher in this study.
99
5. Justification of the Hearer (An utterance that gives a reason or excuse for
the hearer who committed the wrongdoing or expresses the effect on the
hearer.)
AS (Library Fee): Im not saying that it was your fault either.
RS (Library Fee): . [I understand you had things (to
do).]
6. Societal Justification (An appeal that is made by the speaker to socially
accepted values and norms of behavior.)
AS (Loud Music): Normally I wouldnt care but since when you do play it at
night when normal people are trying to sleep.
RS (Loud Music): -
. [We have some rules that after eleven it
is not allowed that you bother the neighbors.]
7. Request for Explanation (An utterance that calls for an explanation of the
hearers behavior.)
AS (Taxi Fee): So am- is this how you usually charge?
RS (Bad Grade): ? [Why did you start to ask
them?]
8. Apology
AS (Loud Music): Im really really sorry to be the stereotypical annoying
neighbor.
RS (Library Fee): . [Im sorry.]

100
9. Blame (An utterance that finds fault with the hearer or holds him/her
responsible for the wrongdoing.)
AS (Library Fee): And it was because that youreturned it to me late.
RS (Late for Project): - o . [I will be
late because of you now for my part-time job.]
10. Threat (An utterance that states an action that the speaker might take,
depending on the hearers reaction.)
AS (Translation Services): If this ever happens again I have to let you go.
RS (Dirty Dishes):
. . [If you dont clean up after yourself,
I wont clean up after myself at that moment when you need to come to the
kitchen and cook. We will see who will win.]
11. Valuation (An utterance that expresses the feelings of the speaker such as
dislike, disappointment, or dissatisfaction about the hearer, the problem, or
both.)
AS (Dirty Dishes): Its disgusting and: making me regret living here.
RS (Translation Services): . [This wasnt
good from your side.]
12. Conciliation (An utterance that attempts to restore harmony.)
AS (Loud Music): I hope we can like get along as neighbors.
RS (Job Interview): . [All right its
nothing its nothing.]

101
13. Remedy (The speaker proposes some action to solve the problem expressed in
a complaint.)
AS (Missed Meeting): I was just wondering if we could reschedule e- our
conversation about my masters thesis.
RS (Tutor): 26
? [Couldnt you explain it slower or cover not so
much of the material in class?]
14. An Expression of Gratitude
AS (Bad Grade): I would really appreciate it.
RS (Paying Rent): . [Thank you that you listened
to me.]
15. Closing (An utterance that closes the complaint.)
AS: Thanks.
RS: . [Thanks.]
The semantic categories of Valuation and Blame were often incorporated in other
categories such as Act Statement, as Example 1 and Example 2 show, or Justification of
the Speaker, as in Example 3 and Example 4:
Example 1. RS (Translation Services):
! [I am very unhappy that you let me down.] (Valuation in Act Statement)
Example 2. AS (Loud Music): I cannot fell asleep right now because of your loud
music (Blame in Act Statement)
26
The request strategies with the verb in the past or present tense with the negative particle will be
translated literally to convey the Russian syntax. Therefore, they will not follow the English norms.
102
Example 3. AS (Dirty Dishes): Its just slightly annoying you know because I
wonna us to have equal parts on this. (Valuation in Justification of the Speaker)
Example 4. RS (Late for Project): A -
. [And I have work tonight and because of you I will be late.] (Blame in
Justification of the Speaker)
The semantic categories of Act Statement, Remedy, Valuation and Closing have
been divided into subcategories to account for semantic and linguistic differences
between the two language groups. The category of Valuation was subdivided into
Regular Valuation and Valuation with Swear Words that served as intensification
strategies, as Example 5 and Example 6 demonstrate:
Example 5. AS (Late for Project) Hey Boris! (Opener) Am- Its not a huge deal
but you know you do realize that you are kind of coming late am- from time to
time to these meetings? (Act Statement) Am- you know is there a reason for that?
(Request for Explanation) Its not a huge deal but you know Im gonna be late for
my evening part-time job (Justification of the Speaker) am- you know now when
youve been here thirty minutes. (Blame) Do you think in the future you know-
we could- that could not happen? (Remedy/Request27) You know Im fine
rescheduling if thats okay with you (Remedy) but you know its getting kind of
burdensome. (Regular Valuation)
Example 6. AS (Dirty Dishes): God! Damn it Andrew! (Valuation with Swear
Words) Okay every time I come in here the whole thing is dirty. (Act Statement)
Like: we share thi-s thing. (Justification of the Speaker) Like can you keep it
27
This example provides request for forbearance because the speaker asks the hearer to refrain from his
behavior in the future. However, request for forbearance occurred in the entire data only twelve times;
therefore, it has not been analyzed as a subcategory of request.
103
clean a little bit? (Remedy/Request) Ive already told you this couple of times.
(Justification of the Speaker) I ca- its disgusting. (Regular Valuation)
The category of Closing consisted of two subcategories: Regular Closing and
Closing with Thanks. In both language groups, the expression of thanking that the
speakers uttered to finish their complaints was identified as Closing and not as the
category of Gratitude, as in the following example:
Example 7. AS (Loud Music): Hey! (Opener) Would you mind keeping it down a
little bit? (Request) um- Sorry (Apology) I just cant sleep. (Act Statement) um-
That would be great. (Gratitude) Thanks a bunch. (Closing)
The subcategories of Act Statement and Remedy will be discussed in-depth in the next
chapter.
3.6.3. Taxonomy of directness in studies on complaints. Modifications to the

taxonomy of directness in the present study.
The present study draws on the CCSARP taxonomy of directness, based on
request perspectives, and on Trosborgs (1995) classification of directness in complaint
perspectives. Some modifications have also been introduced by the researcher in order to
capture linguistic and semantic realizations of the speech act set of complaint of Russian
native and non-native speakers. The level of directness was analyzed within the semantic
category of Act Statement, which constituted the head act and the core of the complaint,
and within the request, which was the most frequent semantic category in Remedy. The
speakers direct strategies were analyzed in terms of social distance, social power, and
the situational context (the severity of imposition).

104
As in the CCSARP project, the extraction of the head act from other sequences
proved challenging in the present study as well. According to Geluykens and Kraft
(2007), a systematic distinction between supportive moves and head acts in the case of
direct complaints may be impossible. The authors pointed out that such a distinction can
lead to a taxonomy in which the core of a direct complaint is a request or an evaluation;
thus, they did not make any distinction between supportive moves and head acts
(Geluykens & Kraft, 2007).
As the data in the present study have demonstrated, some participants did not
express any complaints per se, but showed their disappointment in a valuation of the
situation, in a request, or in a threat, as the following examples demonstrate:
Example 1. RS (Subway): -! ! (Valuation)
[Damn it! How can this be?]
Example 2. RS (Dirty Dishes): ! ? [Listen!
Wont you clean the dishes in the kitchen?] (Request)
Example 3. RS (Dirty Dishes): !
! [Andrew! (If) you leave dirty dishes one more time in
the sink I will throw them (it in Russian) away.] (Threat)
Example 4. AS (Dirty Dishes): Hey! Can you clean the dishes in the sink?
In such situations, the utterances that consisted only of a request, a valuation, or a threat
were categorized as Request, Valuation, or Threat, while the core of the complaint
was marked as 0 Act Statement.
Despite the difficulties resulting from the extraction of the head acts from other
sequences and the complexity of the speech act set of complaint, the present study
105
distinguished between head acts and supportive moves. To properly interpret the
utterances in a complaint, the present study considered the sequential, situational, and
functional criteria, which the authors in the CCSARP (1984, p. 200) and Trosborg (1995,
p. 334) have pointed out. As in those studies, the present investigation demonstrated that
the same expressions that different speakers uttered in the same complaint situation can
serve as a head act, as Example 5 shows, or as a supportive move, as Example 6
demonstrates:
Example 5. AS (Paying Rent): Sarah (laughter) (Opener) I really need that money
that you borrowed from me back. (Act Statement) Rents due and its absolutely
necessary. (Justification of the Speaker) Usually it wouldnt be a problem
(Conciliation) but I need it like no exceptions I just need it. (Justification of the
Speaker)
Example 6. AS (Paying Rent): Hey Sara! (Opener) I wonna to talk to you about the
money I lent you. (Explanation of Purpose) You promised me that you would give
either you would return it at the beginning of this month but you havent (Act
Statement/Blame) and I let some time go by and you still havent returned it to me.
(Justification of the Speaker) Now I really need that money because I need to pay
rent for my apartment. (Justification of the Speaker)
Upon identifying the semantic categories of the speech act set of direct complaint,
the semantic category of Act Statement has been divided into two subcategories in order
to account for linguistic realization of directness in both language groups. The present
study differentiates between off- and on-record strategies within the head act, based on
Brown and Levinsons (1987) terminology related to face-saving strategies. In off-record

106
strategies, the speakers usually used some hints that did not directly address the hearer or
the wrongdoing but conveyed some inconvenience resulting from the hearers
wrongdoing. Frequently, the speakers employed non-conventional indirect strategies,
which allowed them to save their own face and avoid damage to the hearers face. Their
intent, however, had to be interpreted by the hearer, as the following examples show:
Example 7. AS (Late for Project): Hi! (Opener) hm- Im really not feeling well
and I have to get sleep tonight. (Act Statement) So do you think you could turn
your music down or turn it off please? (Remedy / Request) Thanks. (Closing)
Example 8. RS (Loud Music): ! (Opener) . (Opener) -
. (Opener) -
? ::: (Remedy / Request) . (Act
Statement)
[Hi! (Opener) Im your neighbor. (Opener) Aa- (I) live in the room next to you.
(Opener) Aa- couldnt you make the sound quieter please? ::: (Remedy / Request)
I need to go to work tomorrow. (Act Statement)]
As the examples demonstrate, the speakers used hints to express their dissatisfaction,
while the hearers interpreted their intentions as a complaint through the context. Blum-
Kulka and Olshtain (1984) referred to those strategies as mild hints that indirectly
pragmatically imply an act under investigation (p. 202). Frequently, hints accompany
the head acts by preceding or following them, as Example 9 and Example 10
demonstrate:
Example 9. RS (Late for Project): (Opener) (Valuation)
. (Justification of the Speaker/Grounder)

107
. (Act Statement)
(????)
. (Threat)
[Listen! (Opener) But youre a scoundrel! (Valuation) You at least could notify
in advance. (Justification of the Speaker/Grounder) Im already fed up waiting for
you every time for thirty minutes. (Act Statement) Next time I will simply leave
you I wont help you and (????) already by myself.]
Example 10. AS (Dirty Dishes): Hey man! (Opener) Um- look! A- there is
another pile of dirty dishes in the sink: (Justification of the Speaker/Grounder 28)
and I am pretty sure thats your turn to clean them today. (Act Statement) Um-
could you go make sure that gets done? (Request) Thanks. (Closing)
In such cases, hints represent supportive moves to the head act, and they often serve as
grounders since they give a reason for the speech act under investigation (Blum-Kulka,
1984, p. 205).
In on-record strategies, the speakers referred to the hearer, the wrongdoing, or
both. To express their dissatisfaction, the speakers employed various linguistic devices
that allowed them to minimize or intensify the imposition upon the hearer. To account for
the linguistic repertoire within the head act in on-record strategies, the present study
draws on the request perspectives established by the authors in the CCSARP, and on
28
In the CCSARP project, the scholars identified hints that refer to the wrongdoing as strong hints
because they directly pragmatically imply the speech act under investigation (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain,
1984, p. 202).
108
Trosborgs complaint perspectives. The following perspectives29 of the complaint within
the head act have been adopted for the American and partially for the Russian data:
1. Speaker -oriented - I or
From the perspective of speaker-oriented or self-oriented, the speakers identify
themselves as complainers, and, at the same time, they take responsibility for expressing
a complaint by using the personal pronoun in the first person singular. For example:
Example 11. AS (Missed Meeting): So I came to class today a- earlier and I didnt
see you there.
Example 12. RS (Late for Project):
. ([I have been stuck here already for half an hour and cant wait
for you anymore.]
2. Hearer-perspective you or (informal) / (formal)
The speakers explicitly refer to the hearer as responsible for the wrongdoing by using the
personal pronoun in the second person singular or plural. In both languages, the hearer-
perspective is an open-face threatening act that causes damage to the speakers and to the
hearers face. For example:
Example 13. AS (Late for Project): Youre thirty minutes late now to our
appointment.
Example 14. RS (Late for Project): ! [Well
you are late all the time.]
29
These perspectives have been established for request strategies in the CCSRP project (Blum-Kulka &
Olshtain, 1984, p. 203). In her analysis on complaint perspectives, Trosborg expands the CCSARP
taxonomy through focalizing and defocalizing references (1995, pp. 322-326). To establish the level of
directness within the head act, the present project draws on both studies by adopting some categories and
expanding them through new categories in order to account for linguistic structures in Russian.
109
3. Speaker and Hearer perspective - we or
The speakers use the personal pronoun in the first person plural that minimizes the
imposition upon the hearer. By employing the first person plural, the speakers reduce the
risk of losing their face by reducing their role as a complainer through the hearers
involvement, which leads to the speaker and the hearer sharing responsibility for a
wrongdoing. For example:
Example 15. AS (Late for Project): Im not sure if we gonna be able to finish this.
Example 16. RS (Translation Services): -
. [We delayed the translation and the
customer will not give us translations anymore.]
4. Impersonal (in English) - one, people, it / Non-Personalized (in
Russian)30- passive structures and (), , he/she/it, and , they, with
reference to external elements as a source of the complaint.
This category includes passive structures and constructions with people/they/one as
neutral agents (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 203) in English. For the Russian data,
the category impersonal has been renamed to non-personalized. This category includes
passive structures and structures with third person singular and plural referring to external
sources but not people as a source of the complaint. By shifting to the third person
singular or plural, the speaker changes the focus from the wrongdoer to the wrongdoing,
which, in turn, minimizes the risk of losing the face of the speaker and the hearer. The
following examples represent this category:
30
The category impersonal has been renamed as non-personalized to reflect the linguistic features of the
Russian language.
110
Example 18. AS (Bad Grade): There was material on the exam that wasnt
covered in the textbook or lectures or anything like that.
Example 19. AS (Dirty Dishes): Its a mess again.
Example 20. RS (Dirty Dishes): ! [Again the dishes are
dirty!]
Example 21. RS (Bad Grade):
[but on the exam were those questions that were not in the
seminar]
The data analysis has revealed that the four categories could not have captured the
linguistic repertoire in the Russian data. As interlanguage studies in Russian have shown
(Owen, 2001; Shardakova, 2009), the coding system established in the CCSARP and
modified by other scholars for English data cannot be applied to Russian data because it
does not capture the strategies and their directness level in the Russian language (Owen,
2001, pp. 119-121). Therefore, to account for the linguistic devices in the Russian data, a
new category, subjectless sentences, with two subcategories, impersonal expressions and
indefinite-personal expressions (see Category 5 below), has been added since Russian
speakers expressed taking responsibility through not only the nominative case31:
5. Subjectless sentences in Russian data
a) Impersonal expressions - , / , and (genitive form
of the personal pronoun), and , / , and (dative form), and
expressions of type , (it) did not work out, or , (it)
was needed, rendered through third personal neuter in the past tense
31
The perspectives in the Russian data have been established by the researcher in the present study.
111
b) Indefinite-personal expressions - expressions with generic subjects in the
third person plural (Shardakova, 2009, p. 59).
By avoiding the subject in the nominative case, Russian speakers shift the focus from the
speaker or the hearer to an unspecified source of control over the situation, which
minimizes the risk to the speakers face and the hearers face. The following examples
represent this category:
Example 22. (Missed Meeting): -
30 .
[Eh- We agreed to meet thirty minutes before class but it did not work out for
you.]
[Somehow it did not work out to meet with you yesterday.]
Example 24. (Library Fee):
[In the library (they) said that I need to pay a fine.]
Table 5 summarizes the request perspectives in the CCSARP project, Trosborgs
complaint perspectives within the head act, and the modifications for the present study to
account for Russian and L2 data.

112
Table 5
Request Perspectives in the CCSARP (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain, 1984, p. 203), Trosborgs
(1995, pp. 322-326) Complaint Perspectives, and Complaint Perspectives in the Present
Study32
Request Perspectives in Trosborgs Complaint Perspectives Within the Head

the CCSARP Project Perspectives Within the Head Act in the Present Study
Act
Nine strategy types Four categories with eight sub- Off-record
based on the level of categories based on the level of Head act
directness (Blum- directness: no explicit
Kulka & Olshtain, reproach, expression of On-record
1984, p. 202) annoyance or disapproval,
accusation and blame (1995, p.
315)
1. Speaker-oriented 1. Focalizing reference to the 1. Speaker-oriented

complainer
(speaker-perspective: I)
2. Hearer-oriented 2. Hearer-oriented
2. Focalizing reference to the
complainee (hearer-
3. Speaker- and perspective: you) 3. Speaker and hearer
hearer-oriented oriented
3. Defocalizing perspective to
4. Impersonal the complainer (speaker-
perspective: we) 4. Impersonal (in English)
and non-personalized (in
4. Defocalizing reference to Russian)
the complainee (hearer-
perspective: it)
5. No such distinction 5. No such distinction 5. Subjectless expressions
a) Impersonal
expressions
b) Indefinite-personal
expressions
32
The new categories that the researcher added for the Russian data have been highlighted.
113
3.6.4. Directness level in the category of remedy in Russian native and non-native
data.
3.6.4.1. Directness in native and non-native remedy strategies in Russian.

Owens (2001) taxonomy of directness in Russian requests. Modifications for the
present study.
In their complaints, speakers not only expressed their dissatisfaction about the
hearer or the wrongdoing, but they often proposed some solution to the problem in the
semantic category of Remedy by using various linguistic structures. To reduce the
complexity of the linguistic devices that the speakers used to express repair, their
linguistic repertoire has been combined into three main categories, based on the syntactic
and semantic criteria. The first two categories, direct and indirect, represent request that
was the most frequent semantic category in Remedy that the speakers in all language
groups employed. The third category, the speakers non-negotiable resolution, is
represented by direct structures in the first person singular and plural. For example (Taxi
Fee): . I will
pay you only nine hundred rubles as was agreed earlier. The speakers frequently
employed these structures that most likely led to breaking the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer.
Direct and indirect requests have been further analyzed by employing Owens
(2001) taxonomy of directness. The researcher has also added some categories to capture
the linguistic structures that the speakers used in the present study (see Appendix J).
Table 6 summarizes the syntactic structures employed by RSs and L2 learners in the
category of Remedy (see Appendix K for a detailed description of the main categories
with their subcategories):

114
Table 6
The Distribution of Directness in Remedy in Russian Native and Non-Native Data
Request Strategies Speakers
Non-
Negotiable
Resolution
Direct Indirect Direct
Strategies
Hearer- Speaker- Hearer- Unspecified
Oriented (least Oriented and Agent-
indirect) Speaker- Oriented
Oriented (most
indirect)
1. Commands 1. With the 1.Preparatory 1.With 1. General 1.Declarative
and modified negative conditions and preparatory sentences
commands particle and for the without conditions with the
with the verb in the speaker with the modal subjects I
with
() and past tense the verb verb and we, and
and the and the + the declarative
2. 2. With the subject in the subject in infinitive, and statements
Performative particle and nominative the first general with the verb
verbs and the verb in the and dative person obligation
want- present tense cases plural statements (
statement as with
direct strategy 3.Suggestory 2. Speakers
wishes + the
formula with
3. Obligation, ( ) + ( infinitive
hearer fist person
plural
4. Obligation, .) .)
hearer and 4.Interrogatives
speaker with the
question words
5.Declarative when, what,
statement and how, and the
conditional verb to be the
sentences for future tense
possible
events 5.Conditional
( sentences (if +
, the verb in the
past tense)
(
.) ,

.)
115
3.6.5. Analysis of complaints at the discourse level. Intensification and

mitigation strategies employed by RSs and L2 learners.
In addition to the classification of the directness level within the head act and the
repair strategies, the complaints of RSs and L2 learners have been examined at the
discourse level by focusing on lexicon and syntax. To establish linguistic and stylistic
differences, the intensification and mitigation strategies within the head act have been
analyzed. The classification of downgraders and upgraders draws on Trosborgs (1995,
pp. 328-329) classification. The following downgraders within the head act in Russian
native and non-native data have been analyzed:
1. Downtoners: , just, simply, , maybe, , perhaps,
, it seems
Example 1. (Library Fee):
. [Probably you know I will demand money
(dim.) from you because you kept the book too long.]
. [I just somehow was waiting for you well I
wanted to discuss the masters thesis well.]
Example 3. (Tutor): ::
. [It seems that I already mentioned that::
mentioned that I have difficulties because of the very fast pace big amount of
exercises and new material.]

116
2. Understaters: , , - a little bit, , not very much, and
diminutives
Example 4. (Paying Rent): - ? [When will you
return the money (dim.) to me?]
Example 5. (Library Fee): ::
. [But I asked you on time you so:: a little bit let me down.]
Example 6. (Taxi Fee): ::: -
- . [I for example was told that::: to drive so much- not that
much and of course the price should be no more than one thousand. And so two
(thousand) this is somehow a bit too much.]
Example 7. (Tutor): - -
. [We already about this- this discussed but I
manage not very well a- to follow your explanation.]
3. Hedges: , -, kind of, -, somehow, sort of
Example 8. (Translation Services): ::
- -
- . [And you constantly keep your part- keep your
part of work too long and kind of because of that we lost our um- client.]
Example 9. (Taxi Fee): - .
[And somehow I was told that a taxi costs cheaper.]
4. Subjectivizers: , , I think, I suppose, -, in my opinion,
, it seems to me
117
Example 10. (Bad Grade): -
. [I consider
unfair in the exam ticket a- presence of material that we did not cover.]
Example 11. (Loud Music): -
[but in my opinion in this situation you should
a little bit respect your neighbors]
Example 12. (Bad Grade):
. [You know it seems to me (that) you incorrectly evaluated me.]
5. Cajolers: / , you know, / , you understand
(informal / formal), , listen (informal)
Example 13. (Tutor): - . [Aa- you
know I today again didnt understand anything.]
Example 14. (Taxi Fee): ! [Two
thousand this you understand yourself this is too much.]
Example 15. (Loud Music): . [You
know the music at your place is very loud.]
Example 16. (Tutor):
. [Please understand (that) if
you tell me the entire material too fast I wont understand anything.]
6. Appealers: , right
Example 17. (Cutting Line): ? [This is your place in line right?]
The following upgraders within the head act have been analyzed:
118
1. Intensifiers: Adverbs and adjectives: , , very, , too, , so,
such, , quite, , really, , , terribly, ,
constantly, , always, all the time, , repeatedly, and particles: ,
a, ,
Example 1. (Late for Project):
. [This that I do
everything all the time I work here and youre constantly late and that I dont like
very much.]
Example 2. (Subway): - ? [Well why are you so
incautious eh?]
Example 3. (Tutor):
. [Excuse me but you explain too fast and incomprehensibly.]
Example 4. (Library Fee): . [You really let me down.]
2. Commitment upgraders: / , for sure, certainly, ,
unfortunately, , obviously, , for sure
- . [And we agreed to meet today a- you for
sure forgot.]
Example 6. (Tutor): .
[Unfortunately your teaching method doesnt work for me.]
. [Well we agreed for a meeting before
classes but you obviously couldnt (come).

119
3. Lexical intensifiers: Euphemisms and emotionally loaded vocabulary
Example 8. (Dirty Dishes): - ?
[Damn it! Will you clean up after yourself?]
Example 9. (Late for Project): ?
. [Have you totally gone nuts? I have already
been waiting here for half an hour and cant wait for you anymore.]
Example 10. (Dirty Dishes): ! [Im so fed up with you.]
Example 11. (Library Fee): ! [You are a scoundrel.]
3.7. Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage

Complaints
In the cross-cultural investigation, a qualitative approach and descriptive
statistics were employed to establish differences among the three language groups in the
taxonomy of speech act set of direct complaints. Moreover, the quality of the supportive
moves that the speakers used to give their reasons for complaints has been investigated in
all language groups. The following reasons that the speakers gave have been considered:
the speakers appeal to the hearer to take responsibility; the speakers appeal to the hearer
to respect his/her private territory and independence; the speakers justification of the
hearers behavior; the speakers appeal to the hearers moral consciousness; and the
speakers appeal to the hearer by lecturing him or her about how they should behave.
Furthermore, to explore how sociocultural values affected the speakers behavior in a
complaint situation, the speakers choices not to complaint and their explanations to the
situations out of which they opted have been analyzed.

120
In the interlanguage investigation, to assess the differences in the linguistic
behavior of L2 learners and RSs, the following parameters33 have been taken into
consideration: The level of directness in Act Statement and Remedy; the length of
utterances measured in the numbers of words and moves; and the frequency of
occurrence of intensification and mitigation strategies measured by the number of
downgraders and upgraders within the head act.
Within the interlanguage investigation, a generalized estimating equations (GEE)
approach was employed to analyze directness level in the head act using logistic type-
models because there was a binominal distribution of responses (yes/no response). A
GEE was employed in the case of requests, the number of words and moves, and the
frequency of internal modifications using a Poisson model since the model was based on
counts and not on binary outcomes. Directness level, the length of utterances and the
frequency of downgraders and upgraders were analyzed in terms of social distance, social
power, and severity of offense. GEE has also been employed to analyze the effect of
gender and proficiency levels on strategy selection and linguistic choices.
3.8. Hypotheses for the Interlanguage Investigation
The following hypotheses have been proposed to determine structural and
linguistic differences in the realization of the speech act of direct complaints between L2
learners and RSs:
33
The parameters have been considered in previous studies on direct complaints in interlanguage
pragmatics conducted by Olshtain and Weinbach (1993).
121
Hypothesis 1:34 The differences between the learners and native speakers
complaints will be expressed in the learners longer utterances, a larger number of moves,
and less severe (less direct) utterances than those of RSs.
This hypothesis is based on the assumptions that a) Learners will use more off-record and
fewer on-record strategies than RSs, b) Learners will use fewer direct requests and more
indirect requests than RSs, c) L2 learners will use more downgraders and fewer upgraders
than RSs, and d) L2 learners will use more words and moves than RSs.
Hypothesis 2: Male L2 learners will complain by using more direct strategies in
Russian than female L2 learners. The same patterns will be observed in the RSs data
(Russian males will be more direct than Russian females).
This hypothesis is based on the assumptions that a) Male learners will use more on-record
and fewer off-record strategies in Russian than female learners, b) Male learners will
employ more direct request strategies and fewer indirect request strategies than female
learners, c) Male learners will use fewer downgraders and more upgraders than female
learners, and d) Male learners will use fewer words and moves than female learners.
Hypothesis 3: American L2 learners at advanced proficiency level will use more
nativelike structures than learners at the intermediate level.
This hypothesis is based on the off- and on-record strategies, directness level in request,
the frequency of downgraders and upgraders, and the number of words and moves in the
learners group for both proficiency levels, as compared to RSs.
34
To set up the hypotheses for this study, I draw on previous studies on DCs that Olshtain and Weinbach
(1993) and Kraft and Geluykens (2002) conducted.
122
Hypothesis 4: The differences between the learners and native speakers
complaints will result from the learners pragmatic transfer at the sociopragmatic and
pragmalinguistic levels.
The last hypothesis will be answered based on the results of the qualitative and
quantitative analyses that will be conducted in the cross-cultural and interlanguage
investigations.
123
Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion of the Data
4.1. Chapter overview
This chapter reports on the results of the quantitative and qualitative analyses that
were conducted in cross-cultural and interlanguage investigations. It opens with an
overview of the strategy selection within the taxonomy of complaint speech acts
performed by ASs, RSs, and L2 learners. Next, within a cross-cultural investigation, the
chapter reports on the results of a qualitative analysis of complaints with focus on
language- and culture-specific features of complaints that were performed by speakers in
each language group. Then, the chapter will proceed with a recapitulation of the main
findings with reference to the hypotheses that have been posed for RSs and L2 learners
within an interlanguage investigation. The findings regarding the directness level in the
head act and in the repair strategies that L2 learners and RSs offered as well as the
differences between the two groups based on the frequency of words and moves will be
presented. This chapter will also report on the effect of gender on the strategy selection in
the learners and RSs group, as well as the effect of proficiency level on complaints. The
chapter will close with a presentation of complaints at the discourse level, examining the
frequency of downgraders and upgraders that L2 learners and RSs employed.
4.2. Cross-Cultural Analysis of Complaints
4.2.1. Differences in the taxonomy of direct complaints between American

speakers, Russian native speakers, and L2 learners.
To establish a prototypical speech act set of direct complaints, semantic categories
employed by speakers in each language group in each situation were taken into
consideration. The presentation of the results will be based on the distribution of means
124
and standard deviations for each category. This section will also present graphic
representations of the semantic categories and distributions of the main categories that the
speakers employed in each experimental situation.
4.2.1.1. Prototypical taxonomy of direct complaints for American and Russian

speakers. Structural patterns of learners complaints.
As Figure 1 demonstrates, the most frequent strategies employed by ASs, RSs and
L2 learners in all situations were Justification of the Speaker (JS), Remedy (R), Opener
(O), and Act Statement (AS).
Figure 1
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in All Situations for Each Language Group
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 7 presents the most frequent semantic categories employed by speakers based on
the means and standard deviations (SDs)

125
Table 7
Means and DSs for the Most Frequent Semantic Categories for Each Language Group
Based on All Situations
Semantic Category AS L2 RS
Means and SDs Means and SDs Means and SDs

Justification of the 1.27 1.37 0.67
Speaker (1.25) (1.25) (0.83)
Remedy 1.21 1.17 0.90

(0.94) (0.90) (0.74)
Act Statement 0.94 0.96 0.91

(0.24) (0.20) (0.30)
Opener 0.88 1.04 0.88

(0.67) (0.62) (0.67)
It is apparent that overall L2 learners approximate more closely the strategy selection of
ASs since the speakers in both languages most frequently justified their reactions (JS)
and proposed some solution to solve the problem (R) expressed in the complaint. On the
contrary, RSs most frequently stated their complaint (AS) and followed it with Remedy,
as is the case of ASs and L2 learners, although RSs least frequently justified their
reactions (JS).
Table 8 summarizes the means and SDs for other semantic categories, which were
employed less frequently by each language group. As apparent from the table, ASs
mostly differed from RSs in their expression of Gratitude, Conciliation, Closing,
Justification of the Hearer, and Apology. These results demonstrate that AS expressed
their gratitude toward the hearer, justified the hearers wrongdoing, used apologies, and
126
tried to restore the harmony with the hearer more frequently than RSs. They also closed
their complaints more frequently than RSs.
Turning to L2 learners, their strategy selection approximated more closely the
majority of the strategies that ASs employed, such as Closing, Justification of the Hearer,
Blame, Conciliation, Gratitude, and Request for Explanation. However, in their
expressions of Valuation, Societal Justification, and Apology, L2 learners approached
RSs. This difference indicates that overall L2 learners less often expressed their emotions
related to the problem than ASs, and they were less apologetic than their American peers,
which is similar to the behavior of RSs.
Table 8
Means and DSs for the Less Frequent Semantic Categories Based on All Situations for
Each Language Group

Valuation 0.40 0.29 0.30
(0.75) (0.66) (0.58)
Closing 0.25 0.33 0.06

(0.43) (0.48) (0.26)

Hearer (0.50) (0.44) (0.32)
Blame 0.24 0.24 0.16

(0.52) (0.51) (0.40)
Conciliation 0.18 0.15 0.04

(0.48) (0.48) (0.21)
Request for 0.15 0.14 0.06

Explanation (0.52) (0.41) (0.28)
Threat 0.09 0.12 0.11

(0.34) (0.38) (0.40)
127
Explanation of 0.11 0.13 0.06

Purpose (0.32) (0.35) (0.24)
Gratitude 0.10 0.10 0.00

(0.35) (0.33) (0.05)
Apology 0.11 0.07 0.05

(0.37) (0.30) (0.21)
Societal 0.08 0.05 0.04

(0.34) (0.28) (0.19)
Justification
In sum, it should be kept in mind that the distribution of the semantic categories
was based on the overall performance of the speakers in each language group in all
speech situations. Therefore, the distribution of the semantic categories for each situation
differed from the prototypical taxonomy for each language group, which will be
presented in the next section.
4.2.1.2. Structural patterns of direct complaints among all language groups for
individual speech situations.
Each situation called for a different distribution of semantic categories that the
speaker in each language group was to employ. The graphic representations present the
means for the semantic categories of each situation and speaker group, while the tables
show the distribution of the means and SDs for the main semantic categories.
Figure 2 demonstrates the distribution of the semantic categories in the situation
Library Fee. The figure shows that all language groups clustered around four central
semantic categories: Remedy, Justification of the Speaker, Act Statement, and Opener.
With reference to the other semantic categories, ASs did not use any Threats, Societal
128
Justification, or Request for Explanation, while RSs did not employ any Threats or
Gratitude. Learners made use of all of the categories.
Figure 2
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Library Fee for Each
Language Group
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
The distribution of the main categories differed across the groups, as Table 9
demonstrates.
129
Table 9
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Library Fee

Remedy 1.58 1.18 0.89
(0.78) (0.77) (0.58)

(0.20) (0.00) (0.32)

Speaker (0.83) (1.05) ( 0.70)
Opener 0.75 0.94 0.93

(0.44) (0.43) (0.27)
In the situation Library Fee, speakers in all language groups employed Remedy more
frequently than the other categories. RSs used Act Statement as frequently as Remedy but
with a lower variability among the speakers. In their use of the four central categories,
RSs differed mostly from the other groups in their use of Justification of the Speaker. In
their use of Opener, L2 learners more closely approximated RSs than ASs.
As Figure 3 shows, in the situation Late for Project, speakers in all language
groups clustered their strategies around these four main categories: Justification of the
Speaker, Remedy, Opener, and Act Statement. RSs mostly differed from the other groups
in their frequency of Remedy. Unlike other speakers, they did not use Explanation of
Purpose, Apology, Societal Justification, Gratitude, Conciliation and Closing. The
learners data showed that L2 learners did not employ Societal Justification and
Gratitude, while ASs used all of the semantic categories.

130
Figure 3
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Late for Project for Each
Language Group
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 10 shows the distribution of the main semantic categories based on the means and
SDs. The figure and the table demonstrate that L2 learners more closely approximated
ASs than RSs in their strategy selection of Justification of the Speaker, Remedy, and
Opener. However, L2 learners use of Act Statement was closer to RSs than ASs.
131
Table 10
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Late for Project

Speaker (1.32) (1.26) (0.86)
Remedy 1.37 1.32 0.68

(1.25) (1.22) (0.86)
Opener 0.97 1.06 0.89

(0.56) (0.34) (0.83)

(0.25) (0.17) (0.19)
Figure 4 demonstrates the distribution of semantic categories in the situation
Paying Rent. It is apparent that speakers in all language groups centered their
complaints on four main strategies: Justification of the Speakers, Opener, Remedy, and
Act Statement. With regard to the less frequently used categories, no group used Societal
Justification. Moreover, ASs did not make use of Threat, Valuation, and Request for
Explanation. RSs were the only speakers who did not employ Gratitude.
132
Figure 4
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Paying Rent for Each
Language Group
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 11 shows the distribution of the main semantic categories in the situation Paying
Rent. As is evident from the table, L2 learners more closely approximated ASs than RSs
in their strategy selection of the main semantic categories. Russian native speakers, in
turn, greatly differed from the other speakers in their average frequency of Justification of
the Speaker.
133
Table 11
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Paying Rent

Speaker (1.25) (1.54) (0.75)
Opener 1.21 1.26 1.33

(0.79) (0.62) (0.61)
Remedy 1.21 1.12 0.93

(0.74) (0.88) (0.58)

(0.19) (0.17) (0.18)
Figure 5 shows that in the situation Dirty Dishes, the speakers in all language
groups most frequently used Justification of the Speaker, Remedy, Opener, and Act
Statement. With reference to the less frequent categories, RSs did not use more categories
than the other groups, such as Explanation of Purpose, Apology, and Gratitude, while
ASs did not use Explanation of Purpose and Conciliation. The L2 learners did not employ
Societal Justification and Gratitude, and they used Valuation less frequently than the
other speakers.
134
Figure 5
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Dirty Dishes for Each
Language Group
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
The distribution of the main semantic categories differed among the three language
groups, as table 12 demonstrates. RSs mostly differed from ASs and L2 learners in their
average frequency of Justification of the Speaker, while L2 learners more closely
approximated the strategy selection of ASs.

135
Table 12
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Dirty Dishes

Speaker (1.32) (1.33) (1.00)
Remedy 1.04 1.20 0.77

(0.69) (0.76) (0.63)

(0.36) (0.17) (0.35)
Opener 0.88 1.06 0.90

(0.68) (0.34) (0.31)
As Figure 6 shows, in the situation Loud Music, similar to previous situations,
the speakers in all language groups clustered around four main strategies: Remedy,
Opener, Act Statement, and Justification of the Speaker. With regard to the other
categories, RSs did not use any Explanation of Purpose, Gratitude and Request for
Explanation. ASs and L2 learners refrained from using just one category, Request for
Explanation.
136
Figure 6
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Loud Music for Each
Language Group
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 13 demonstrates the distribution of the main semantic categories. It is apparent that
L2 learners justified their reactions more frequently than other speakers. They more
closely approximated ASs than RSs in their use of Opener, but they were closer to the
behavior of RSs in their use of Remedy.

137
Table 13
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Loud Music

Remedy 1.77 1.44 1.17
(0.57) (0.65) (0.79)
Opener 1.43 1.61 1.27

(1.14) (1.34) (1.36)

(0.00) (0.23) (0.38)

Speaker (0.95) (0.99) (0.86)
Figure 7 shows that in the situation Cutting Line, speakers in all language
groups clustered their complaints around the same main categories: Act Statement,
Opener, Remedy, and Justification of the Speaker. With regard to the other semantic
categories, speakers in all language groups did not use Explanation of Purpose, Threat,
Gratitude, and Conciliation. Unlike ASs and L2 learners, RSs did not employ Blame,
Justification of the Hearer, and Closing. L2 learners differed from ASs and RSs because
they did not use Valuation and Request for Explanation.

138
Figure 7
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Cutting Line for Each
Language Group
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 14 shows the distribution of the main categories. It is apparent that L2 learners
justified their reactions in this situation more frequently than ASs and RSs. They behaved
in the same way as RSs in their strategy selection of Act Statement.
Table 14
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Cutting Line

(0.00) (0.20) (0.19)
Opener 0.86 1.00 0.79

(0.35) (0.29) (0.42)
Remedy 0.59 0.56 0.71

(0.50) (0.65) (0.66)

Speaker (0.67) (1.00) (0.64)
139
Figure 8 illustrates the semantic categories that the speakers employed in the
situation Taxi Fee. As the figure demonstrates, RSs and L2 learners focused their
complaints on the following main categories: Justification of the Speaker, Act Statement,
Remedy, and Opener. ASs slightly differed from the other groups since they did not use
Opener as one of the main categories and instead used Request for Explanation. The
distribution of the less frequent categories differed among the three groups. Speakers in
all groups avoided use of Explanation of Purpose; however, RSs stood out from the other
speakers because they did not use many of the categories as well, such as Blame,
Apology, Societal Justification, Gratitude, and Conciliation. Unlike other groups, ASs
used Blame and Apology. L2 learners, in turn, were the only speakers who used Societal
Justification and Gratitude.
Figure 8
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Taxi Fee for Each Language
Group
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
140
Table 15 demonstrates the distribution of the main semantic categories in the situation
Taxi Fee. The table shows that L2 learners more frequently justified their reaction than
speakers in the other groups, while ASs more frequently used Request for Explanation
than other speakers. In their use of Remedy and Request of Explanation, the behavior of
L2 learners was closer to RSs than to ASs, while the learners strategy selection of Act
Statement was the same as that of ASs.
Table 15
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Taxi Fee

Speaker (1.16) (1.12) (0.80)

(0.00) (0.00) (0.27)
Remedy 0.61 0.75 0.74

(0.79) (0.55) (0.94)
Request for 0.43 0.19 0.19

Explanation (0.74) (0.40) (0.56)
Opener 0.39 0.56 0.48

(0.50) (0.50) (0.51)
Different distribution of the main semantic categories among the language groups
was observed in the situation Subway, as Figure 9 and Table 16 demonstrate. ASs
centered their reactions on Conciliation, Valuation, Remedy, and Act Statement, while
L2 learners clustered around Remedy, Justification of the Speaker, Act Statement, and
Conciliation. The main categories for the group of RSs were: Valuation, Act Statement,
Remedy, Opener, and Justification of the Speaker. With regard to the less frequent
141
categories, all language groups avoided use of Explanation of Purpose, Threat, and
Societal Justification. RSs were the only speakers who did not employ Request for
Explanation and Closing, while L2 learners were the only speakers who did not
apologize. L2 learners were the only group to employ Gratitude.
Figure 9
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Subway for Each Language
Group
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 16 shows the distribution of the main semantic categories. As is apparent from the
table, RSs used Valuation more frequently than ASs, while L2 learners employed
Valuation least frequently; thus, this category did not represent the main categories in the
learners group. RSs also differed from ASs and L2 learners in their less frequent use of
Conciliation. Moreover, the distribution of the main categories indicates that L2 learners
differed from the other speakers because of their more frequent use of Remedy and
Justification of the Speaker. L2 learners more closely approximated RSs than ASs in their
average frequency of Act Statement.

142
Table 16
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Subway

Conciliation 0.75 0.63 0.14
(0.97) (1.21) (0.45)
Valuation 0.60 0.26 0.86

(0.68) (0.45) (0.89)
Remedy 0.55 1.00 0.61

(0.83) (1.00) (0.69)

(0.51) (0.45) (0.46)
Opener 0.40 0.58 0.29

(0.50) (0.51) (0.46)

Speaker (0.44) (1.27) (0.60)
As Figure 10 illustrates, in the situation Bad Grade, the speakers in all groups
clustered their responses around the following main categories: Justification of the
Speaker, Remedy, Opener, and Act Statement. With regard to the other categories, RSs
did not use Threat, Societal Justification, and Conciliation, but they more frequently used
Apology than the other speakers. In the learners data, there was no Threat, and in the
American speakers data, there was no Gratitude.

143
Figure 10
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Bad Grade for Each
Language Group
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
L2 AS RS
Table 17 demonstrates the distribution of the main categories. It is apparent that RSs
justified their reactions less frequently than ASs and L2 learners. L2 learners, in turn,
more closely approximated ASs than RSs in all of the main categories.
Table 17
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Bad Grade

Speaker (1.40) (1.69) (1.02)
Remedy 1.17 1.28 1.07

(0.85) (1.02) (0.60)
Opener 1.10 1.09 0.93

(0.49) (0.30) (0.38)

(0.00) (0.00) (0.19)
144
As Figure 11 shows, in the situation Missed Meeting, each group employed the
following main categories: Act Statement, Remedy, Opener, Justification of the Speaker,
and Justification of the Hearer. The latter was typical for ASs. With regard to the
remaining categories, speakers in all groups avoided use of Threat and Blame. Unlike
ASs and L2 learners, RSs did not employ Request for Explanation and Apology.
Learners, in turn, were the only speakers who used Gratitude, but they did not employ
Valuation and Societal Justification. ASs did not make use of Explanation of Purpose,
Societal Justification, and Gratitude.
Figure 11
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Missed Meeting for Each
Language Group
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 18 demonstrates the distribution of the main semantic categories. As is apparent
from the table, RSs mainly differed from ASs and L2 learners in their less frequent use of
Justification of the Hearer. L2 learners more closely approximated ASs than RSs in their
strategy selection of all of the main categories.

145
Table 18
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Missed Meeting

Remedy 1.52 1.40 1.11
(0.87) (0.74) (0.70)

(0.26) (0.28) (0.40)
Opener 0.90 1.11 0.96

(0.41) (0.32) (0.34)

Speaker (0.78) (0.81) (0.56)

Hearer (0.57) (0.61) (0.19)
Figure 12 shows the means and SDs for the main semantic categories in the
situation Translation Services. The figure indicates that the main categories were
differently distributed among the three language groups; however, L2 learners more
closely approximated ASs in their strategy selection. With reference to the less frequent
categories, no group used Societal Justification. Overall, learners were closer in their
strategy selection to ASs except in their choice of Explanation of Purpose. Unlike ASs
and L2 learners, RSs did not use Apology, Gratitude, and Conciliation.
146
Figure 12
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Translation Services for Each
Language Group
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
Table 19 illustrates the distribution of the means and SDs for the main categories. The
table shows that RSs differed from ASs and L2 learners because they did not use Blame
as frequently as the other speakers. They also justified their reactions less frequently than
ASs and L2 learners. In their use of Remedy, L2 learners approximated RSs.
Table 19
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Translation Services

Speaker (1.24) (1.09) (1.01)
Remedy 1.14 0.88 0.85

(0.95) (0.98) (0.73)
Blame 1.03 0.88 0.65

(0.91) (0.73) (0.63)
147

(0.00) (0.17) (0.20)
Opener 0.93 1.12 0.92

(0.37) (0.33) (0.48)
Figure 13 demonstrates the semantic categories that the speakers employed in the
situation Tutor.
Figure 13
Distribution of the Semantic Categories in the Situation Tutor for Each Language
Group
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
L2 AS RS
The means and SDs for the main categories are presented in Table 20. The table and the
figure demonstrate that L2 learners approximated ASs in their choices of the main and
the less frequent categories, except in their use of Opener. RSs, in turn, differed from
other speakers because of their less frequent use of Justification of the Speaker and
Remedy. With regard to less frequent categories, none of the speakers used Societal
Justification and Request for Explanation. Unlike ASs and L2 learners, RSs did not
148
employ Gratitude and Conciliation. All of the groups made almost identical choices in the
strategy selection of Act Statement.
Table 20
Means and SDs for the Main Categories in the Situation Tutor

Remedy 1.63 1.61 1.20
(1.13) (0.96) (0.85)

Speaker (1.28) (0.95) (0.84)

(0.18) (0.17) (0.18)
Opener 0.57 0.86 0.76

(0.57) (0.49) (0.50)
To conclude, in their strategy selection, L2 learners overall more closely
approximated the majority of the strategies that ASs employed. However, some situations
have also shown that L2 learners are transitioning in their use of semantic categories from
their L1 norms to L2 norms, which could have been triggered by their everyday-life
encounters with native speakers.
4.2.2. Qualitative analysis of complaints: cultural values and social norms

reflected in complaints of ASs and RSs. Learners performance of complaints.
The cross-cultural investigation has taken a qualitative approach with focus on
language- and culture-specific features of complaints across all language groups. The
section opens with a presentation of explanations that the speakers in all language groups
gave regarding situations to which they decided not to react. The second part of this
section consists of a thorough analysis of supportive moves that the speakers provided in
149
their complaints in order to better understand their strategy selection and linguistic
choices in each complaint situation. Both analyses served to establish learners transfer
from their L1 at the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels and gender differences
for all language groups.
4.2.2.1. Analysis of opt-out situations.
Striking differences between ASs and RSs arose from the situations in which the
speakers opted out. The most significant differences were observed in public behavior
between ASs and RSs, and L2 learners. Most frequently ASs and L2 learners opted out of
Subway, and Cutting Line, the situations in public: 43.4% of female learners and
57.1% of male learners decided not to react to the situation in the subway. In the group of
30 ASs, 26.7% of female speakers and 40% of male speakers decided not to react, while
among 30 RSs there was only one female and one male speaker who did not react in the
subway. Similar differences were observed in the situation in the grocery store: 26.09%
of female learners and 42.8% of male learners decided not to say anything to a woman
who cut into a line in front of them. In the group of ASs, 20% of the female speakers and
33.3% of male speakers did not react, while among RSs, one male (6.7%) and one female
person (6.7%) did not say anything. Figure 14 and 15 demonstrate the distribution of opt-
out situations based on the number of opt-outs for each situation, arranged by language
group and gender.

150
Figure 14
Distribution of Opt-Out Situations for Males in Each Language Group
Subway Taxi Fee n Services Tutor RS

AS
AL
Translatio
RS
AS
AL
RS
AS
AL
RS
AS
AL
RS
Paying
Rent
AS
AL
RS
Meeting
Missed
AS
AL
RS
Music
Loud
AS
AL
RS
Library
Fee
AS
AL
RS
Late for
Project
AS
AL
RS
Dishes
Dirty
AS
AL
RS
Cutting
Line
AS
AL
RS
Grade
Bad
AS
AL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Total
151
Figure 15
Distribution of Opt-Out Situations for Females in Each Language Group
RS
Tutor AS
AL
RS
Translati
Subway Taxi Fee Services

on
AS
AL
RS
AS
AL
RS
AS
AL
RS
Missed Paying
Meeting Rent
AS
AL
RS
AS
AL
RS
Music
Loud
AS
AL
RS
Late for Library
Fee
AS
AL
RS
Project
AS
AL
RS
Dishes
Dirty
AS
AL
RS
Cutting
Line
AS
AL
RS
Grade
Bad
AS
AL
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Total
To explain their behavior in a grocery store, American male and female speakers
named avoidance of confrontations with strangers as a reason, and two female speakers
152
also named their lack of courage and shyness as a reason for their silence. In the subway,
all male speakers and most female speakers explained that they would not react because
what happened was an accident, and nothing could have been done afterward. Some of
the ASs also pointed out that they were not offended by the womans unintentional
behavior and would not say anything to avoid causing additional stress for the woman.
RSs explained their decisions differently than American speakers. In the situation
Cutting Line, the only Russian female who opted out explained that she did not react in
order to avoid a scandal, and she added that in the Soviet Union people waited in line for
hours; therefore, nowadays, one additional woman in line would not make any difference
to her. Unlike the Russian female, the male speaker decided not to say anything because
he did not want to teach the woman how to live, , and explained that her
inappropriate behavior would somehow stay on her conscience,
. In the subway, the Russian female speaker did not react to avoid a scandal,
while the male speaker explained that it would be useless to react because the shirt was
already ruined. It has to be mentioned that the same Russian female did not react in the
subway and in the grocery store.
L2 learners offered various explanations. The male learners did not say anything
to the woman cutting line in order to pay her respect as a woman and because they would
not like to argue with her in public. One male speaker at the advanced proficiency level
also stated that his insufficient Russian dictated his behavior, and he added that he would
have reacted in this situation in America. In the same situation, female learners gave
different responses: One female explained that people in a grocery store in Russia
frequently cut a line. This behavior is a cultural thing, and so she would not say
153
anything in a situation like that. Some females also perceived cutting a line as
something not important enough to react to, or they felt too shy to say anything.
In the situation in the subway, some female learners did not react because any
verbal reaction would be pointless since the shirt was already damaged, or they refrained
from addressing the woman because they were too angry to talk to her. Some females
would not react because crowds and people rushing are a part of Russian culture, 35 and
anything can happen in the subway. Most male speakers explained that they would not
confront the woman in the subway because what happened was an accident, and the
woman was not to blame. Similar to female learners, male learners pointed out that
nothing could have been done after the shirt was ruined; therefore, it would be pointless
to get angry at the woman and to get into an argument with her. One of the male speakers
said that he would surely curse in English, but would not say anything in Russian, while
other male speakers would simply ignore the situation and walk away.
In sum, the explanations given by the speakers revealed sociocultural values
underlying both cultures: ASs avoided confrontations in public and justified the hearers
behavior, while RSs took into consideration teaching strangers how to behave and
referred to behavior to the wrongdoers conscience. The learners behavior revealed
various reasons behind their decisions, and some of these were attributed to transfer of
the sociocultural norms from their L1, such as justification of the hearers behavior and
avoidance of conflict in public. Some, on the other hand, reflected high degree of
awareness of American-Russian cultural differences and of their limitations as a L2
speaker.
35
Most likely the learners referred to culture of large cities, such as Saint Petersburg or Moscow.
154
In the case of the speakers decisions not to address a professor about a bad grade
or a meeting that he missed provided a valuable insight into both cultures. The data has
shown that among the three language groups, the L2 learners opted out of the situation
about the bad grade more frequently than the other speakers: 13.51% of the learners, most
of whom were females, did not address the professor about the undeserved grade, while
only one American male, and two Russian speakers, one male and one female, did not
react in this situation. The L2 learners gave as explanation their previous bad experience
about negotiating a final grade with a professor, and the fact that they themselves are
responsible for their grades. The American male who did not react explained that it is not
uncommon for students to be tested on a final exam on material that was not covered in
class. RSs, in turn, explained that they would not approach their professor due to their
upbringing and because they would not like to question the professors authority. Similar
to the AS, RSs pointed out that students are required to do some extra work to get a better
grade.
In the situation Missed Meeting, only one American female, and two L2
learners, one male and one female, refrained from confronting the professor, and three
Russian females decided not to talk to the professor. The American female explained that
she would not address the professor in person, but she would send an email with a request
to meet on another day. The Russian females explained that they would not request a
meeting out of respect for the professor, and they would wait for him to explain the
situation. One of the female speakers also said that a professor is kind of sacred, ,
and she would avoid being a burden to him so that their relationship would not get
155
damaged. Similar to the other speakers, the learners said that they would not address the
professor about the meeting, but instead they would wait for him to explain the situation.
In sum, the speakers explanations in both situations revealed differences in social
norms that affect the way students communicate with their professors in American and
Russian cultures. The data have shown that a higher status of the hearer impacts the
behavior of students in Russian culture who are more reserved and respectful toward the
professor in Russia, while a higher status of the hearer has less of a constraining effect for
an American speaker.
Some differences in the frequency of opting out were also observed among
speakers across cultures in the situations with friends, which were Dirty Dishes,
Paying Rent, and Library Fee. In the situations Dirty Dishes and Library Fee,
ASs more frequently than the other speakers did not react. While all RSs addressed a
friend who did not do the dishes, 20% of ASs, equally distributed between genders, and
8.7% of female learners decided not to say anything in this situation. ASs and L2 learners
would do the dishes by themselves because, in their opinion, dirty dishes are not an
important reason to confront friends.
In the situation Library Fee, in which friends interact with each other, 20% of
ASs, most of whom were males, and 10% of RSs, most of whom were females, decided
not to address a friend who did not return a book on time. In the learners group, 10.81%
learners, all of whom were females, did not react. All ASs and L2 learners who decided
not to react explained that they would not confront a friend about such an unimportant
issue because a library fine is usually not expensive. Some speakers also stated that it is
not worth damaging a relationship with a friend over a library fee. In contrast, all RSs
156
who opted out explained that they would not react because of their friendship with the
hearer, but, unlike ASs and L2 learners, they did not mention money in this situation.
In another situation that referred to money, Paying Rent, 6.7% of ASs, equally
distributed between genders, did not react and 8.1% of learners, all of whom were
females, decided not to say anything. Unlike ASs and L2 learners, all RSs reacted. Most
speakers who did not react in this situation explained that they would excuse the friend
who did not return the money because she may have some financial difficulties, and, in
general, they hate to ask for money. The American male who did not react explained that
he does not lend large sums of money ever.
In the situation Taxi Fee, RSs opted out more frequently than ASs and L2
learners: 10% of RSs, most of whom were males, decided not to address the taxi driver
about a high fee. They explained that they should have confirmed the fee with the taxi
driver and should not have relied on the information from the hotel receptionist, which
reflected the way a taxi ride is arranged in Russian culture.
The situation Translation Services also resulted in more opt-out situations in the
group of RSs. 13.3% of Russian speakers, equally distributed between genders, would not
address a student who did not return his part of a large project on time as compared to
3.3% of ASs and 8.1% of learners, primarily males in the learners group. RSs explained
that they learned their lesson and would be more careful in choosing a partner for their
translation services in the future. ASs and L2 learners would not mention this issue to the
hired student unless he asked for another project to translate.
To conclude, the explanations that ASs and RSs provided for the situations they
opted out provided a valuable insight into both cultures. Their decisions not to react to
157
different situations were attributed to differences in social norms and cultural values
underlying American and Russian cultures: Different public behavior (reserved approach
toward strangers in American culture vs. open confrontations with strangers in Russian
culture); differences in perception of social status that affect social interactions in an
academic setting (formal and deferential behavior toward a person of higher status in
Russian culture); and different perceptions of friendship and money (the speakers
discomfort in talking about money, even among friends, in American culture vs. the
speakers uneasiness to address money because of friendship with the hearer in Russian
culture). As the data show, learners decisions not to react in public and their perception
of friendship and money are similar to the behavior of ASs, which indicate learners
transfer from their L1 at the sociopragmatic level.
4.2.2.2. Analysis of supportive moves.
This section focuses on the situation itself, its impact on the speakers reactions
across cultures, and on language- and culture-specific values reflected in the speakers
strategy selection and their linguistic choices in a complaint situation.
4.2.2.2.1. Effect of situation on supportive moves. Cultural values reflected in

complaints.
The data have demonstrated that in the situations in which a contract has been broken,
such as Library Fee, Late for Project, Paying Rent, Dirty Dishes, and Translation
Services, speakers in all language groups supported their complaints by referring to the
hearers to take responsibility and to fulfill their obligations, as the following examples
show:
Example 1. AS (Dirty Dishes): Hey Andrew! Could you a- a- clean up the kitchen? I
cant always do this for you. This is something that you have to take responsibility for
158
yourself and its not cool if you do a- if youre like always leaving am- dirty dishes
around and expecting everybody else to clean them up. The rest of us certainly do.
Why shouldnt you do yours?
Example 2. RS (Dirty Dishes): ! .
. [Andrew! But today is your turn to clean up. Why do you constantly
leave a mountain of dirty dishes? Im fed up with cleaning up after you.]
Example 3. L2 (Dirty Dishes): ! ! - .
- . -
[Ah! Andrew! You again did not clean up the kitchen. You know well that this is
your- your turn to clean up the kitchen and this is very impolite they reject- to reject
your duty. Please keep clean and respect your neighbors.]
While confronting friends and hired persons, overall, the speakers in all language
groups reprimanded and criticized the hearers about the wrongdoing, and they often
lectured them about their behavior, particularly in the situations Late for Project and
Dirty Dishes. However, RSs stood out from the other speakers because of their strong
tendency to teach the hearer how to behave properly, as in the following example:
Example 4. RS (Late for Project): !
.
159
[You know Boris I never liked unpunctual people. And in general I cant stand
when people are late. I myself come a half an hour earlier get up earlier and
calmly go to my appointment knowing that I still have time in reserve. So please
dont do this anymore.]
In the confrontations with friends and hired people, RSs openly showed their
dissatisfaction by frequently saying, . or . You let
me down (informal/masc.). In these situations, RSs often criticized the hearers by
pointing out that their behavior was offensive and wrong and that they should be ashamed
of that, as in Example 5 and Example 6:
Example 5. RS (Library Fee): !
- -
. -
. - . ?
[Ann! (dim.) Do you remember you took a book from me well this about
linguistics a- you know it is not mine it is from a library a- well and the time to
return the book has already past long ago and you still havent returned it to me.
Well- well how can it be? This is not the first time after all. Well I- I will need to
pay the fine. Are you not ashamed?]
Example 6. RS (Library Fee): ! .
. . :::
160
- .
[Ann! (dim.) You behaved very badly. In your place, I wouldnt have done it. I
needed to pay a fine. I will not check out a book in my name anymore::: anymore
because of you. Excuse me please.]
RSs also referred to the hearers morality and their conscience, which was absent in the
complaints of ASs and L2 learners. The following example demonstrates the behavior of
RSs:
Example 7. RS (Late for Project): ! ?
? - .
[Boris (dim)! Do you have a conscience? Why are you late all the time and I need
to wait for you? Because of you now I will be late.]
RSs reprimanded not only friends but also strangers by lecturing them about how
they should behave, by being judgmental about their behavior, and by giving them advice
about how to live, , as one of the Russian male speakers said. In contrast,
ASs and L2 learners hardly ever reprimanded strangers because, as demonstrated in the
previous section, they avoid criticism of people they do not know and because they do
not want to have public confrontations. The way RSs taught strangers how to behave can
be seen in the following examples:
Example 8. RS (Subway): -! y : !

161
[What the hell! Excuse me but please: (be) more careful. I understand there is a
line a lot of people in the subway crowds but (you) needed at least to finish eating
the ice cream in the subway or not to open it and now eat up when you get off the
subway. Please foresee the situation by a few moves ahead.]
Example 9. RS (Subway): ! ! -
[Miss! You dont need to hurry so much! Because of you people are suffering.]
Overall, in public, RSs openly showed their negative emotions that the hearers behavior
triggered. Sometimes, they sounded angry and rude because of euphemisms and
emotionally loaded vocabulary. They were judgmental about the hearer, and they rarely
justified the hearers wrongdoing in public: Only one male speaker (6.7%) and two
female speakers (13.3%) showed understanding toward the womans behavior in the
subway. The behavior of RSs in public also showed some gender differences. Russian
male speakers resorted to a brief and simple complaint, and only one male speaker
explained the situation to the hearer. Russian females tended to explain the situation to
the woman and to reprimand her openly by showing their frustration and irritation. Male
speakers also incorporated some humor, playfulness and irony in their reactions in public,
while female speakers did not. (These features of complaints will be analyzed in detail in
next section.)
In contrast, ASs preferred to express their frustration in exclamations and not to
address the wrongdoer in public: Only 13.3% of ASs, equally distributed between
162
genders, openly addressed the woman about the spilled coffee; however, the males
sounded harsher than females because of euphemisms. The majority of ASs excused the
womans behavior, and a few speakers even felt responsible for what had happened
because they felt they should have been more careful. This sense of mutual responsibility
was absent in the Russian data. It appears from this situation that American male and
female speakers were more linguistically restrained in their reactions toward a stranger in
the subway than RSs.
The L2 learners did not feel comfortable enough to react in the situation in the
subway or in the grocery store; therefore, many of them did not say anything in public
(48.6% of the learners did not react in the subway, and 32.4% did not say anything in the
grocery store). The learners who reacted in the subway mostly justified the womans
behavior, and only 24.3% of the learners held her responsible for the wrongdoing, most
of whom were females. The learners reactions also showed some gender differences: On
the whole, female learners showed their frustration more overtly than male speakers, and
their behaviors were closer to those of Russian females than to those of American
females.
Two Russian speakers who evaluated the learners reactions suggested that their
reactions in public were often too soft, which is unusual for Russian culture. The
learners were too apologetic and often justified the womans behavior, while, according
to the evaluators, Russian speakers would either reprimand the wrongdoer in a situation
like that or would do not say anything. Apparently, learners would pragmatically fail
while confronting strangers in a complaint situation.

163
In the situations in which money was involved, Library Fee and Paying Rent,
some differences were evident in the strategy selection among the speakers across
cultures. In general, in the situation, Library Fee, the speakers asked the wrongdoer to
pay or to help pay the fine and not to do this anymore in the future. However, the
speakers in both cultures expressed it differently: ASs preferred indirectness while
Russian speakers favored directness when addressing friends about money. The
American data showed that while most ASs avoided directly addressing the wrongdoer
and instead referred to the fine or the lateness of the book, 26.7% of the speakers, equally
distributed between genders, openly confronted the hearer. Nearly all RSs directly held
the hearer responsible for the wrongdoing. To fix the problem expressed in the complaint,
similar differences were observed: Most ASs, except for 13.3% of the speakers, were
indirect when requesting money from the hearer, while most RSs used imperatives to ask
the hearer to pay the fine.
The L2 learners displayed behavior similar to RSs: Nearly all male and female
learners held the hearer responsible for the wrongdoing and directly addressed the hearer
about it. The learners behavior seems to reflect their acculturation process in adopting
Russian behavior that could have been triggered by their frequent interactions with
Russian peers and their host families. A lack of control over linguistic strategies has been
excluded as an explanation about the learners behavior in this situation because the
learners demonstrated their ability to shift the focus from the wrongdoer to the
wrongdoing in other situations.
In the situation Paying Rent, speakers in all language groups usually focused on
their urgency to pay rent or on having some financial problems, and they rarely blamed
164
the hearer directly for not returning the money on time. Some speakers hesitantly
reminded the hearer about the money because they felt embarrassed or uncomfortable
doing so. RSs often referred to the promise that the hearer made to return the money. The
speakers reactions also reflected some underlying cultural values in both cultures: Self-
sufficiency in American culture (Hoffman, 1989; Wierzbicka, 1991) and suffering that
the hearers wrongdoing caused in Russian culture (Kozlova, 2004, Larina, 2009).
In sum, overall, RSs chose directness in stating the problem related to money,
while ASs opted for indirectness. RSs preferred straightforwardness and sincerity in their
interactions with friends, and they did not try to minimize or spare the feelings of the
interlocutor, which confirms other studies (Wierzbicka, 1991; Kartalova, 1996; Tarasova,
1999; Bergelson, 2003). In contrast, ASs favored indirectness in order not to impose upon
a friend. It can be concluded that the behavior of ASs and RSs in their interactions with
friends about money revealed culture- and language-specific values. With reference to the
learners, their behavior with friends about the library book may indicate their
acculturation process since they used directness in this situation.
In the situation Loud Music, the speakers in all language groups employed
societal justification by referring to rules in the dormitory that do not permit playing loud
music at night. However, in most cases, ASs, particularly female speakers, carefully
reminded the hearer about the quiet hours; many ASs were apologetic, explained in
details their discomfort, and carefully asked the wrongdoer to turn down the music. On
the contrary, many RSs threatened the hearers and demanded that they immediately turn
off the music. Overall, the learners displayed a similar behavior to ASs: They were
apologetic and did not address the problem directly, although 14.3% of the male learners
165
and 26% of the female learners held the hearer responsible for the wrongdoing. Compare
the following examples:
Example 10. AS: Hi! I dont think weve met. Im I dont mean to be rude and I
hate: to for this to be the first impression of each other but would you mind
turning down the music? Its really loud and the walls are thin and Im just having
trouble sleeping. So if you could turn down the music it would be really nice.
Thank you.
Example 11. RS: ? .
[Do you have a conscience? Its already twelve at night. If you now dont turn off
the music I will call the police.]
Example 12. L2: ! ? -
:: .
-:: - --
() . -
- -
- . ::
?:::: - .
- .
[Hi! How are you? Well listen please a- your music is very loud and for me this::
is very uncomfortable because I cannot sleep. In particular today I have a
headache and a- you know to live in the dormitory usually ee- it happens so that it
166
is no- forbidden to do what- what that what you do at home especially (laughter)
with music. This is very loud and other neighbors at- other neighbors surely dont
like it but a- please aa- there is no need to turn on- to turn on. Just do in this to
be:: quieter okay?::::It will be very comfort- nice to get acquainted with you in the
future. Probably tomorrow we can do something together.]
The data have demonstrated that when confronting strangers in situations where rules
were broken, RSs were confrontational, categorical, and overtly emotional, while ASs
tried to minimize imposing their negative feelings upon the hearer by being apologetic,
understanding of the hearers needs, and rarely making demands on the hearer, which is
in line with other studies (e.g., Larina, 2009). Overall, male learners displayed behavior
similar to ASs while female learners were more confrontational, closer to the behavior of
RSs.
The situation Taxi Fee triggered similar reactions of male and female speakers
across cultures. The majority of American and Russian male speakers refused to pay the
fee. Some of the male speakers were aggressive and threatening toward the taxi driver
and not willing to negotiate at all. In contrast, female speakers in both cultures rarely
displayed aggressive or threatening behavior. Only one American female speaker used
threats, and only one blamed the taxi driver for the situation. Other American females
requested that the driver explain the high fee. Most Russian female speakers also
requested an explanation from the taxi driver, but were not threatening or blaming. Their
responses indicated that they felt helpless in this situation, and some of them blamed
themselves for the unfavorable situation because they should have set the price with the
taxi driver, which is customary in Russian culture, and should not have relied on the
167
information from the hotel. Nearly all Russian female speakers tried to bargain the price
with the taxi driver, while only one American female speaker tried to negotiate the price.
In this situation, the L2 learners behaved differently than their American peers.
Male learners displayed behavior similar to Russian female speakers: They requested an
explanation and tried to bargain the price, and only 21.4% of them used threats and
demands. Female learners behaved similarly to male speakers in both cultures: They were
more categorical in their explanations, and 34.8% of them were threatening and
demanding of a lower price. In their explanations, the L2 learners insisted on paying the
fee that was agreed upon in advanced. Their behavior demonstrated their cultural
knowledge about taking a taxi in Russia, which was attributed to their study abroad
experience.
The situations with professors, Bad Grade and Missed Meeting, provided
culture-specific characteristics of relationships between professors and students in both
cultures. Similar to other studies (e.g., Shardakova, 2009), ASs behaved in a friendly and
informal manner with the professors by using the informal greeting hi while all RSs
behaved formally with their professors, which reflects the impact of social power on
social interactions in the Russian society. In these situations, many L2 learners, but only
one of them at the advanced level, behaved inappropriately by greeting the professors
with , hi, and addressing them with , informal you; the former one was
accounted to the learners transfer of sociocultural norms from their L1, while the latter
resulted from a lack of a distinction in formal and informal address forms in their L1.
To justify their complaints about the undeserved grade, the speakers in all groups
emphasized the effort they put into studying during the semester. In general, the speakers
168
referred to the grade, to the material that was not covered in class, or used the first person
plural, we/, to refrain from imposing upon the professor, for example,
, we didnt cover it in seminars. Contrary to the researchers
expectations and to other studies (e.g., Murthy & Neu, 1996), in the American data,
23.3% of ASs, equally distributed between genders, openly criticized their professor and
demanded a better grade.36 In the Russian data, 10% of the speakers criticized the
professor, all of whom were males, while Russian female speakers did not display such a
behavior. This finding confirms differences in social norms between professors and
students in both cultures, which are much more formal in Russian culture than in
American culture. This difference, in turn, indicates the impact of social status on
interactions in the Russian society. Compare some of the most critical responses elicited
from ASs and RSs:
Example 13. AS (Male): I dont think its quite fair that you asked me- us as a
class questions that were not:: sort of covered in the class material. I believe that
my work this semester has merited higher grade than that this especially in light
of my grade being lowered by material that was not covered in this semester. Am-
I understand that as a professor you reserve the right to be put whatever you want
on the test am- but I do believe that it is not entirely fair to ask us questions that
you didnt cover as a class topic or put on the syllabus. Am- I would appreciate it
or I think it is fair that you give me myself and the other classmates a- who
wished the opportunity to retake the exam.
36
These results may reflect a growing trend toward emphasis on customer satisfaction rather than learning
outcomes alone among American students in the US. The hierarchy of the relationships and the academic
freedom in the education system in American culture open some possible areas for further research.
169
Example 14. RS: !
::
. -
- : .
- - !
[Hello Nikolaj Borisich! I want to talk to you about the grade for the exam. The
point is that I counted on receiving a better grade because:: I was preparing
myself based on the material that we covered in seminars. But since you included
material that: that wasnt in the lecture material because of that um: I received a
lower grade. Lets somehow um- solve the problem.]
With reference to the learners, 16.2% of the learners, most of whom were females, openly
criticized the professor while addressing their bad grade. Three of the criticizing learners
were at the advanced proficiency level. The following example demonstrates it:
Example 15. L2 (Intermediate): ! -
::
. :: - . ::
() .
- .
[Nikolaj Borisovich! You at- you included in the exam tickets material that you
did not cover in:: seminars and we did not cover. And later you me:: gave a ba-
bad grade. This:: but can this (laugh) I think that (this) does not count if we did
not cover these topics. (I) want want gra- (I) want a higher grade.]
170
Such an inappropriate sociolinguistic behavior could be perceived as poor mannered in
Russian culture, and, consequently, could prevent the learners from further negotiations
about improving their grade and could even lead to a conflict with a professor in the
future, which the Russian speakers who evaluated the data pointed out. It appears that
some learners would pragmatically fail while negotiating a problem of this sort in an
academic setting.
Overall, the L2 learners were apologetic and indirect in expressing their
disappointment about the bad grade; however, the L2 learners, and the female learners in
particular, were very verbose and lengthy in their explanations. The learners wordiness
demonstrated their uncertainty about how to negotiate a problem with a professor in
Russian culture at the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels.
Cultural differences were also observed in the situation Missed Meeting. The
speakers in both cultures displayed a different behavior when a professor did not come to
a meeting about their preliminary ideas for their masters thesis. While addressing the
professor, ASs and L2 learners expressed their concern about his absence, and they
suggested a certain time to meet with him, while only 6.7% of RSs made a suggestion to
meet on a certain day. According to one of the Russian evaluators and based on the
researchers own analysis, in Russian culture, the professor suggests a certain time to
meet with a student, and a reverse situation is inappropriate in the academic environment.
In this situation, L2 learners at both proficiency levels exhibited the same behavior as
ASs, which was ascribed to transfer from their L1 at the sociopragmatic level.
Based on the speakers reactions in all the situations, striking culture-specific
differences were established among ASs, RSs, and L2 learners in their expression of
171
gratitude. ASs and L2 learners expressed their gratitude toward the hearer, regardless of
the fact that the hearer let them down. ASs showed their appreciation in seven situations
out of twelve,37 while L2 learners expressed their gratitude in nearly all situations: ten out
of twelve, with the exceptions being in Cutting Line and Dirty Dishes. In contrast,
RSs expressed their gratitude only in the situation with the professor about the bad grade.
The learners data demonstrated that the L2 learners at both proficiency levels showed
gratitude toward friends, strangers, professors, and people whom they hired. As the
Russian evaluators pointed out, their manifestation of gratitude is very unusual in Russian
culture. Russian speakers express gratitude for something that has already been done in
their favor and not just to demonstrate their politeness, unless speakers interact with the
hearer in formal settings, as the Russian data in the present study have confirmed
(compare Larina, 2009, p. 465).
4.2.2.2.2. Concept of politeness in American and Russian cultures.
The data have revealed differences in conceptualizing politeness in both cultures.
In confrontations with friends and hired persons, ASs appealed to the hearer to respect
their time, space, and privacy. In the situations Late for Project, Dirty Dishes, Loud
Music, and Translation Services, ASs felt disrespected by the hearers lack of
consideration for their obligations and by the hearers inconsiderate behavior toward their
space and time, as in the following examples:
37
As a reminder, instances in which the speakers in all language groups expressed gratitude as a part of a
request were not analyzed as a semantic category of Gratitude, but as Request. There were twenty-nine
occurrences of gratitude in request in the American data, five occurrences in the Russian data, and eight
occurrences in the learners data. Moreover, the expressions, , thanks, in the Russian data, and
thank you in the American data that the speakers used to finish a complaint were analyzed in this study as
Closing and not as Gratitude. There were forty-nine occurrences of thanks in Closing in the America data,
ten occurrences in the Russian data, and seventy-three occurrences in the learners data. These results only
reinforce the cultural differences among the speakers indicating that unlike Russian speakers, American
speakers and L2 learners express gratitude to show politeness and not necessarily to express their state of
being grateful toward the hearer.
172
Example 1. AS (Dirty Dishes): Andrew! This is disgusting. Its not okay to leave
these dirty dishes in the sink. I live here too this is my space and I understand its
its your space too but like you can keep your bedroom however you want and I
keep my bedroom how I want but like the public spaces like the living room and
the kitchen like not okay that is has to be cleaner. This is gross. Can you please
clean it up? This is:: this is really disrespectful of the end (????) of my space.
Example 2. AS (Loud Music): Am- its after midnight and youre still listening to
music really loud. I dont mind you listening to music during the day. Its just at
night Im trying to sleep am- its just not considered to me and anyone else in the
dorm plus after midnight especially during the week you should really be quite
because of college rules anyway never mind even consideration for other people
am- so you really need just to respect other people space other peoples privacy
and you need to turn off your music.
The equivalent concept of privacy is absent in Russian culture (Wierzbicka, 1991, p.47).
The invasion of privacy in American culture can be defined in narrower terms in Russian
culture as an invasion of somebodys feelings (Pavlenko, 1999, p. 224). In the situations
mentioned above, RSs appealed to the hearer to respect other people by behaving
properly, as the following example illustrates:
Example 3. RS (Loud Music): !
.
173
[Listen dear friend! Respect tastes and opinions of others. I understand that you
like this music very much but you can put on headphones and listen to it at night
quietly so that you dont bother anyone.]
While confronting interlocutors in the dormitory in the situations Dirty Dishes
and Loud Music, RSs also referred to the fact that the same social status of the speaker
and hearer requires a mutual respect, which is based on the same responsibilities that they
have in common places (compare Gershenson, 1994).
Contrary to the researchers expectations, L2 learners referred to respect of their
time, but they did not refer to respect of their privacy or space. Their behavior may result
from their knowledge about differences in the concept of privacy in Russian and
American cultures, insufficient linguistic repertoire, or uncertainty about how to express
these ideas in Russian.
In sum, the data have shown that the concept of politeness in American culture is
defined differently than it is in Russian culture: ASs perceive politeness as respect toward
the interlocutors private space and independence, while in Russian culture politeness is
defined by etiquette (e.g., Akishina & Formanovskaja, 1978). As Larina (2009) put it, to
be polite in Russian culture means to observe the rules of the propriety,
(p. 425). As in the example above, the hearers
behavior was not polite in Russian culture because, according to etiquette, a person in
society should not disturb other people with loud music at night, while in American
culture such behavior would be perceived as an intrusion into the speakers private space.
The observations about the concept of politeness in this study are in line with results of
other studies about politeness in Slavic and Western cultures that were introduced in
174
Chapter 2 in the present study (e.g., Brown & Levinson, 1987; Wierzbicka, 1991;
Ogiermann, 2006b; Larina, 2009).
4.2.2.2.3. The role of diminutives and address forms in complaints.
As demonstrated in the previous section, in complaint situations with friends,
strangers, and hired persons, unlike ASs, RSs were confrontational, straightforward,
judgmental, and categorical, but they were also humorous; the latter was typical for
Russian male speakers, as in Example 1:
Example 1. RS (Library Fee): ! - !
() .
[Well Annie (dim.) Annie (dim.)! How can you be like that? All right later
(laughter) I will settle up with you.]
The complaints of RSs also sounded ironic or sarcastic, as in Example 2 and 3, and some
also sounded rude and even aggressive because of euphemisms and emotionally loaded
vocabulary, as in Example 4:
Example 2. RS (Cutting Line): ! ?
. ::
[Citizen (dim.)! But where are you (going)? I have in fact been standing here
ahead of you for more than thirty minutes. The end of the line is behind me::]
Example 3. RS (Translation Services): y !
. .
[Well dear! With such an attitude toward work I dont need you. I dont want to
have anything to do with you anymore.]

175
Example 4. RS (Subway): ! ! ! -
-?
[Damn! Maam! Is it possible (to be) more careful? What are you doing after all?
As the Russian data show, RSs used diminutive forms and address forms to minimize or
intensify the seriousness of the offense. The speakers lessened the imposition upon the
hearer by using endearing diminutives, for example, , Ann (dim.), , Ann
(dim./vocative), , money (dim.), as in the example below:
Example 5. RS (Library Fee): !
? .
[Listen Annie (dim.)! So are you going to give me the book? I already need
money for it a fine needs to be paid. Be somehow faster now and surely you know
I will somehow demand money (dim.) from you because you kept the book too
long.]
RSs also employed disparaging diminutives of first names, for example,
/a, which did not intensify the offense when friends used them but
showed solidarity between the interlocutors, as in the example below:
Example 6. RS (Dirty Dishes): !
::: : . ?
:: .
176
[Listen Andrew (dim.)! We already discussed a::: taking turns to clean our:
rooms. And what did you forget? Today is your turn so you do go and clean up::
in the room.]
RSs also used the noun , buddy, to address interlocutors they did not know, but
who were similar in age to the speaker to create familiarity with them, as Example 7
demonstrates:
Example 7. RS (Loud Music): !
. ::: -
::: .
[Hi buddy (dim.)! I dont know your name but here are my headphones, please at
least today listen to your lovely music in them. I dont want::: I dont want to be
late umm- I want to wake up fresh and brisk. But if this doesnt convince you then
Ill smash your stereo sound system:::but lets dont reach such measures. Thank
you friend.]
In sum, the endearing and disparaging diminutives marked in-group solidarity, which is
in line with other studies (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 108; Rathmayr, 1996, p. 371;
Larina, 2009, p. 414), and they also added some playfulness and irony to the complaints
(compare Ogiermann, 2009b, p. 253).
Moreover, the RSs used a range of address forms that played a role similar to the
diminutive forms mentioned above. To address a friend, RSs employed endearing

177
diminutive forms of first names that created closeness between interlocutors (see
Wierzbicka, 1991, p. 107). They often used them as alerters in the vocative forms38, for
example, , , . In only a few instances, RSs employed disparaging
diminutives of first names to address a friend or a hired student, such as a, which
showed the speakers dissatisfaction with the hearer, and, at the same time, marked
belonging to the same group. RSs also employed various adjectival nouns, such as
, dear (male/informal) or , my dear (female/informal), to address
friends, a noisy neighbor, and , respected/mister, to address a tutor in a rather
disparaging way. In some instances, these address forms lessened the imposition upon the
hearer or increased the offense, depending on the intonation and on particles that
accompanied the address forms. For example, the particle , like in Example 2,
, or , intensified the impact of the complaint by showing the
speakers annoyance and signaling that some bad news will follow the opening.
In some instances, RSs addressed the hearer by using address forms accompanied
by expletives and euphemisms, which sounded rude and even aggressive. RSs used the
following combinations: ! !, Listen! You are a scoundrel,
!, You are a scoundrel Vania, - ! What the hell, maam!, !
!, Damn! Maam! Although the euphemisms generally have negative
connotations in Russian culture, they also can be perceived as a means of expressiveness
and indicative of an in-group identity when friends employ them, as pointed out by
Larina (2009, p. 391). Used in a conversation with strangers, they demonstrate the
irritation and anger of the speaker, as in Example 3 above. It is worthwhile to mention
38
The vocative case does not exist in contemporary Russian. Russian linguists refer to forms like ,
, as , vocative forms, which Russian speakers use in colloquial Russian
among friends and family members (compare Kanskij, 2007).
178
that speakers of both genders accompanied address forms with euphemisms to address
interlocutors in a complaint situation.
RSs used a great range of address forms to address a stranger (a woman in the
subway and a woman in a grocery store, a noisy neighbor, and a taxi driver). These
address forms encompassed not only common address forms, such as , woman,
, girl, , maam, , young man, but also ,
madam, toward a woman, and , comrade/fellow, toward a taxi driver; ,
friend, , buddy, and , neighbor, toward a noisy neighbor, and diminutive
forms that added some irony and humor to the complaint, such as ,
citizen(dim), madam, and , lady. Interestingly, Russian male speakers provided a
variety of address forms while confronting a woman (and the hearer in general), while
Russian female speakers limited the address forms to and . Therefore,
often in confrontations with strangers, the complaints of male speakers sounded more
humorous and less offensive than those of Russian females. These findings are consistent
with Shardakovas (2009) study, which showed that Russian male speakers tend to
include humor in their apologies to downgrade the offense, while Russian female
speakers rarely used humor in their apologies (p. 104).
Forms of address were also present in the American data, but exhibited less
diversity. While addressing a friend and a stranger (taxi driver), ASs used informal
address forms such as (come on / look) man, dude, buddy, which served to create an in-
group identity (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 107; Ogiermann, 2009b, p. 254), or they
used first names to address friends or a hired student, or they simply addressed a noisy
neighbor as neighbor. ASs also used formal address forms, such as maam or miss to
179
address a woman in the subway or in the grocery store, sir to address a taxi driver, and
professor to address a professor. In many instances, ASs used hey, hi, hello, excuse me,
or Im sorry to get the hearers attention.
It is worth mentioning that in American culture, male speakers used a larger
variety of address forms in communication with friends, strangers, and hired persons than
female speakers, which reminds us of analogous gender differences in Russian culture.
Furthermore, ASs rarely used address forms accompanied by euphemisms or expletives.
Similar to RSs, they used those strategies to address a stranger (woman in the subway,
woman in the grocery store, the taxi driver, and a noisy neighbor), or a hired student who
did not fulfill his obligation. However, only American male speakers intensified their
complaints by employing such strategies while female speakers did not use these
strategies at all. The following examples demonstrate the strategies used by the male
speakers: Andrew! What the hell!, Goddamn it Andrew!, Hey! What the hell!; the latter
was expressed toward a woman in the subway.
L2 learners used a limited range of diminutives and address forms when
compared to RSs. L2 learners employed the following diminutive forms: Diminutives of
first names that were not used in the description of the situations (two occurrences) and
the diminutives of adverbs and adjectives such as, (twelve occurrences),
(one occurrence), (two occurrences), and (seven
occurrences). Only one disparaging diminutive form was used by a learner at the
advanced proficiency level who referred to a woman working in the library as ,
disparaging about a woman. In many instances, as the Russian evaluators also noted, the
learners used the diminutives incorrectly, particularly, the diminutives and the
180
adjective , employed in the meaning of little, e.g.,
(instead of , a little bit), or (instead of
, small). Obviously, the learners tried to lessen the imposition upon the hearer
by using the diminutive forms, but often their choices were inaccurate. On the one hand,
all of the learners who incorrectly used the diminutives were at the intermediate level,
while the advanced learners showed a proper use of diminutives. On the other hand, the
learners at the intermediate level more frequently used the diminutive forms than the
advanced learners.
To address the hearer, L2 learners employed a limited range of address forms,
such as first names to address friends, a hired student, or a neighbor for whom some
learners made up a name. However, only three learners used the first names in the
vocative case, and two of the learners were at the advanced proficiency level. The L2
learners addressed a new neighbor by saying , neighbor; , young
man, toward a taxi driver; , maam, , girl, , young
girl, toward a woman. The latter was employed incorrectly since the adjective young is
not used in connection with the noun , girl, in Russian. The data also showed
that the learners at the intermediate level more frequently than the advanced learners used
the address forms incorrectly, for example, , taxi driver, and , man, to
address a taxi driver; , tutor, , supervising professor, to address a
tutor; and , professor, to address a professor. Moreover, while addressing the
hearer, female learners often used the interjection , oh, combined with the address
forms. For example, to address a woman in the subway, some female speakers used the
expression, ! In some cases, to address the hearer, the L2 learners used

181
() (), excuse me (please)/informal and formal, ()
(), forgive me (please)/informal and formal, () or ,
hello/hello abbreviated /informal and formal, , hi, or , listen.
The data have shown that the learners, particularly those at the intermediate level,
had difficulties choosing a correct address form in various social contexts. In some cases,
they translated address forms from their L1 and used them in the L2 context; for example,
the noun man that is not used to address a person in Russian culture. With regards to the
use of address forms accompanied by euphemisms, there was only one speaker at the
intermediate level who addressed the hearer by saying, ! Boris you fool!
Moreover, the data demonstrate that the learners at both proficiency levels
inappropriately used particles with address forms, as particularly evident in their choices
of the particle , well, but (the translation of the particle is context dependent), were not
proper in various contexts. This use had an undesired warning or threatening effect, such
as in the following examples when the speaker addressed the professor by saying:
! Well respected Nikolaj Borisovich!, or when the
speaker said to a friend who did not clean the kitchen: ! !, Well
Andrew! Now you listen! The learners employed such combinations of particles and
address forms while obviously being unaware of the undesired effect of their complaints
because the rest of the complaint did not match the unfriendly opening.
In sum, the L2 learners use of diminutives and address forms revealed their
uncertainty about how to mitigate or intensify their dissatisfaction as well as how to
address the hearer and the wrongdoing. However, the data indicate that the advanced
learners better controlled linguistic strategies to express politeness; thus, overall, they
182
more effectively negotiated a problem in a complaint situation than the intermediate
learners.
4.2.2.2.4. The role of order of semantic categories in complaints.
The order of occurrence of semantic categories used by ASs and RSs in their
complaints differed, which affected the features of their complaints. According to the
most frequent structural patterns of complaints in the Russian data, after getting the
hearers attention, RSs used Valuation or Blame. They then justified their complaints,
and at the end proposed a Remedy to the situation. It appears that RSs structured their
complaints in this way to intensify their complaints. They used Valuation immediately
before or after stating their complaint, which intensified their dissatisfaction. For
example:
Example 1. RS (Library Fine): ! (Opener) ! -!
(Valuation) . (Act
Statement) : -
- -
. (Remedy)
[Ann (dim.) (Opener) What the heck?!39 (Valuation) I gave you the book on time
and now I need to pay. (Act Statement) I think (you) need aa: to pay the fine after
all or to give me your money so that I can pay m- you- fine that was put down on
my name. (Remedy)]
ASs also used Valuation before or after stating their complaints in order to intensify
them, but not as often as RSs. Examples 2 and 3 show Valuation in the data of ASs:
39
This is not an exact translation of the Valuation because the phrase -, a euphemistic expletive,
does not have an equivalent in English.
183
Example 2. AS (Dirty Dishes): Andrew! (Opener) This is disgusting. (Valuation)
Its not okay to leave these dirty dishes in the sink. (Valuation in Act Statement)
Example 3. (Late for Project): You can- you cant come to me Boris like this late
all the time. Its disrespectful. (Valuation following Act Statement)
As the data have demonstrated, ASs and L2 learners preferred not to start their
complaints by first stating the problem. Rather, they started their complaints by giving
reasons for their dissatisfaction that often justified the hearers wrongdoing. ASs and L2
learners used Gratitude, Justification of the Speaker, Justification of the Hearer, Request
or Apology before stating their dissatisfaction in order to reduce the imposition upon the
hearer, as Examples 4 and 5 show:
Example 4. AS (Loud Music): Hey! (Opener) Would you mind keeping it down a
little bit? (Request) um- Sorry (Apology) I just cant sleep. (Act Statement) um-
That would be great. (Gratitude) Thanks a bunch. (Closing)
Example 5. L2 (Translation Services): ! (Opener) -::::
- - ? (Explanation of Purpose)
(Justification of the Hearer)
:: (Act Statement) -
- (Justification of the
Speaker) : -
- -
. (Justification of the Speaker)
[Vania! (Opener) Aa-::::Vania do you remember how aa- I gave you a small-
small translation? (Explanation of Purpose) Well you translated well very well
184
(Justification of the Hearer) although you sent (it) to me too late:: (Act Statement)
Well and thats why I couldnt finish aaa- this project on time (Justification of
the Speaker) and unfortunately: the client of the project got very angry- (fem.)
angry (fem.) at me- at me and decided not to consult me- (dat.) me- (gen./acc.)
about the translations anymore. (Justification of the Speaker)]
ASs and L2 learners even apologized or showed their gratitude in order to mitigate the
imposition upon the hearer, while Rs rarely used Apology or Gratitude. Compare the
following statements of ASs and RSs in the situation Tutor:
Example 6. AS: Um- so I really appreciate you helping me (Gratitude) and I feel
like I like you know the material and that I can learn a lot from you (Justification
of the Hearer) but I would really appreciate if you could go slower for me
(Remedy / Request) Im not really able to keep up with you when you go at that
pace (Act Statement).
Example 7. RS: ! (Opener) .
(Act Statement) - .
(Threat)
[Mister! (Opener) And you run too fast and I dont understand (it). (Act
Statement) And- either we pick up the pace that I need or we will part. (Threat)]
In sum, the order of occurrence of semantic categories in complaints of ASs and
RSs differed, which served the speakers to intensify or mitigate their complaints. The
order of semantic categories of L2 learners was similar to that of ASs, which was
attributed to learners transfer from their L1. Speakers in American culture structured
their complaints differently than RSs in order to face their own face and the hearers face.
185
4.2.2.2.5. Conclusions to the qualitative analysis.
The qualitative analysis of the data has shown that, to some degree, the situation
itself elicited similarities in the ways that the speakers in all language groups supported
their complaints, while sociocultural values in American and Russian cultures caused
significant differences in the speakers behavior in a complaint situation.
Striking differences between ASs and RSs arose in their behavior in public.
According to the data, RSs showed a tendency to teach (in the sense of , to
educate) friends and strangers how to behave properly, to give them advice, and to openly
judge the interlocutors. These results are in line with other studies (e.g., Tarasova, 1999;
Bergelson, 2003; Larina, 2009) that have shown Russians appreciate advice from
interlocutors and expect others to morally evaluate them. Sometimes they even require
from others moral evaluation of mutual loyalty, respect, sincerity (Bergelson, 2003, p.
3). While addressing strangers, RSs also referred to the hearers moral conscience and to
the suffering resulting from the hearers wrongdoing, and both reflect underlying values
in Russian culture.
In their confrontations with strangers, RSs behavior can appear impolite and even
boorish by American standards. As Larina (2009) stated, . .
. , regarding the attitude toward
strangers . . . Russians often allow impoliteness and even rudeness (p. 148). Although
such behavior does not follow etiquette, some scholars point out that interactions with
strangers imply less social distance in Russian culture, which Ogiermann (2009b) put in
the following way: Apparently, the high social distance among strangers in Poland and
186
Russia is quickly overcome when people become involved in a common situation even
if it takes a form of an offence (p. 228).
As the American data have demonstrated, these aspects of Russian culture are not
present in American culture where speakers avoid telling others how to behave because
doing so would be an intrusion into others private space and independence. The analysis
also confirmed different conceptualizations of politeness in both cultures. In Russian
culture, polite behavior is based on etiquette which defines respect, , as a
proper behavior toward other people, while in American culture politeness has its roots in
respect of private space and freedom of the interlocutors involved in social interactions.
Different behavior of ASs and RSs also reflected the concept of politeness in
regard to face-saving strategies. While confronting friends, strangers, or persons whom
they hired, RSs openly showed their negative emotions that threatened their own face and
the hearers face. They said what they thought and how they felt, usually without any
hesitation, except in the situations in which the status of the hearer was higher than that
of the speaker and in the situation where they asked the hearer to return the money for
rent. It appears that RSs preferred directness, straightforwardness, and sincerity over
utilization in face-saving strategies in complaint acts, which is consistent with the results
of other studies (Wierzbicka, 1991; Larina, 2009; Ogiermann, 2009a, 2009b).
Unlike RSs, ASs and L2 learners preferred indirectness to avoid imposition upon
the interlocutors in an effort to both respect their autonomy and private space and to
avoid personal judgments. As a result, overall, ASs were more careful and hesitant in
stating the problem, more apologetic, and more reluctant in proposing a solution to the
problem. They also excused the hearers behavior, which rarely occurred in the Russian
187
data. These face-saving strategies reflect values underlying American culture, which
affect the way the speakers behave in a complaint situation.
Furthermore, significant differences were observed based on gender. The
complaints among Russian female and male speakers differed. Russian male speakers,
while generally direct and judgmental, also employed diminutives and a variety of
address forms to create humorous and ironic effects, which, in turn, minimized or
intensified the offense of their complaints.40 Russian females did not incorporate any
humor into their complaints. Unlike Russian female speakers who explained the situation
to the hearer, Russian male speakers rarely provided details to explain their reactions and
rendered instead to brief statements with emotionally loaded vocabulary.
The American data provided some gender differences in complaints. Male
speakers used a larger variety of address forms that created in-group solidarity, while
females did not. Similar to Russian male speakers, American males were more
argumentative and threatening while confronting a taxi driver than female speakers.
However, overall, the data showed more similarities between males and females in
American culture than between males and females in Russian culture. In the group of
ASs, both genders often excused the hearers wrongdoing and gave detailed explanations
to justify their complaints. Unlike Kozlovas study (2004), ASs hardly ever incorporated
humor into their complaints.
The learners data also showed some gender differences. American female
learners showed their frustration much more openly than male learners and their
40
The use of humor and irony in public and cross-gender differences in Russian culture open a promising
area for further research.
188
American peers. Female learners were even threatening toward a noisy neighbor and a
taxi driver, and they seemed to adopt a male attitude in a complaint situation.
The L2 learners data revealed the learners uncertainty about both how to express
dissatisfaction and how to negotiate a problematic situation in the target language. The
data demonstrated that, overall, the advanced learners better controlled linguistic devices
to express politeness, mitigate the offense, and address the wrongdoer about the
wrongdoing than the intermediate learners. However, the advanced learners were also
inconsistent in their linguistic choices: 25% of the advanced learners were critical toward
the professor about their grade, and sometimes they were either too polite or too formal in
their interactions with friends because of their use of formal and informal personal
pronouns. The learners at both proficiency levels were also uncertain about their
linguistic choices in their interactions with strangers. The data also demonstrated that the
intermediate learners had more difficulties choosing proper diminutives and address
forms than the advanced learners: Their linguistic choices revealed both their uncertainty
about how to mitigate or intensify their dissatisfaction and how to address the hearer and
the wrongdoing.
Moreover, at the strategic level, the learners strategy selection in the target
language showed the influence of transfer from their L1 at the sociopragmatic and
pragmalinguistic levels. Overall, the L2 learners did not approach Russian nativelike
strategies since they structured their complaints like ASs. To minimize the offense, they
used the strategies of conciliation and gratitude, which RSs rarely used, and they justified
their reactions and excused the hearers behavior much more frequently than RSs. The
learners tried to reduce the imposition upon the hearer by using these face-saving
189
strategies, while RSs did not. In some situations, particularly in public, the learners
strategy selection could prevent them from effective negotiations with native speakers
and even cause their pragmatic failure
As apparent from the foregoing, the sociocultural norms and values typical for
Russian native speakers have to be taught to American L2 learners of Russian because
they greatly differ from the cultural values and social norms that the learners know from
their L1 language and culture. In particular, American learners who decide to study in
Russia have to be made aware of these sociocultural differences so that they do not feel
intimidated and unwelcomed while encountering Russian speakers in everyday- life
situations. Otherwise, they may get discouraged and may even isolate themselves from
Russians whose linguistic behavior they may interpret as rude and even aggressive.
Consequently, avoiding communication with the native speakers would negatively affect
their progress in Russian during the study abroad program.
4.3. Interlanguage Analysis
This section reports on the main findings obtained in the interlanguage
investigation based on statistical analyses. First, the differences between the L2 learners
and RSs and the differences between genders will be presented based on their use of off-
and on-record strategies when social distance, social power, and severity of offense were
taken into consideration. Next, the differences between both groups and genders will be
reported based on their use of request strategies and the number of words and moves. The
chapter will then recapitulate the main findings on L2 proficiency levels. The
190
presentation of the differences between L2 and RSs at the discourse level will close this
chapter.
4.3.1. Differences between L2 learners and RSs based on off-record strategies

by considering social distance and social power.
To establish the differences between the L2 learners and RSs in their use of off-
and on-record strategies, a GEE (generalized estimating equations) was employed using a
logistic regression model and a logit link function. Table 21 summarizes the results
regarding the off-record strategies.
Table 21
Off-Record Strategies for Groups and Genders by Social Distance and Social Power
OUTCOME Stratum GROUP GROUP Gender Gender INTERACTION

ODDS P- ODDS P- P-VALUE
RATIO VALUE RATIO VALUE
Off-record Friends/ 2.28 0.0868 0.778 0.5982 0.4272
Same
Off-record Stranger/ 2.83 0.0224 0.686 0.4004 0.8933

Same
Off-record Professor/ 6.56 0.0041 1.63 0.3723 0.7782

Lower
Off-record Hired/ 1.42 0.5897 0.282 0.0738 0.9225

Higher
Off-record ALL 2.66 0.0035 0.752 0.3843 0.9356

Note. Any p-value < .05 indicates significant differences.
As the table demonstrates, the interaction between group and gender is not significant for
any of the interactions, i.e., with friends, strangers, professors, and hired persons. This
finding means that the differences in the odds ratios between males and females are
similar within each group and across groups. After controlling for gender, overall, the
odds of an off-record strategy in the learners group are 2.66 times (or 166% greater than)
191
the odds of an off-record strategy in the RSs group, and this difference is statistically
significant (p = .003). With at least 95% confidence, we can conclude that in the
population, American L2 learners are more likely to use off-record strategies to express
their complaints than Russian native speakers, which confirms Hypothesis 1, which
theorizes that L2 learners are less direct in their complaints than RSs.
Moreover, the results show that, in the interactions with strangers, the odds of an
off-record strategy in the learners group are 2.83 times (or 183% greater than) the odds
of an off-record strategy in the RSs group (p = .022). Furthermore, in interactions with
professors, the odds of an off-record strategy in the learners group are 6.56 times (or
183% greater than) the odds of an off-record strategy in the group of RSs (p = .004).
With at least 95% confidence, we can conclude that in the population, American L2
learners of Russian are more likely to use off-record strategies while negotiating a
problem with professors and strangers than Russian native speakers.
4.3.1.2. Effect of gender on off-record strategies by considering social distance

and social power.
With regard to gender, as presented in table 21 in the previous section, the
interaction between group and gender is not statistically significant (p = .936). This result
means that the differences in the odds of an off-record strategy are similar for males and
females within each group and across groups. After having controlled for group, overall,
the odds of females using an off-record strategy are 0.75 times (or 24.8% less than) the
odds of males using the same strategy (p = .384). Contrary to expectations, the males
were more likely to use off-record strategies than the females in the study. However,
there was not enough evidence to indicate statistically significant differences in off-
record strategies between males and females in the population.

192
Moreover, in the interactions with professors, the odds of females using an off-
record strategy are 1.63 times (or 37% greater than) the odds of males using an off-record
strategy (p = .372). As the table indicates, the interaction with the professors was the only
one in which the females in the study were more likely to use off-record strategies than
males, while in the other interactions they were less likely to use off-record strategies
than males. However, there was not enough evidence to show significant differences in
odds of an off-record strategy between males and females in each interaction, i.e., with
friends, strangers, professors, and hired persons.
4.3.1.3. Differences between L2 learners and RSs based on on-record strategies

by considering social distance and social power.
Table 22 below summarizes the results regarding the odds of on-record strategies
for groups and genders when social distance and social power were taken into
consideration.
Table 22
On-Record Strategies for Groups and Genders by Social Distance and Social Power

On-record Friends/ 0.8646 0.7418 0.9025 0.8157 0.1750
Same
On-record Stranger/ 0.7958 0.4914 0.8931 0.7457 0.0647

Same
On-record Professor/ 0.5172 0.1823 0.6810 0.4382 0.6136

Lower
On-record Hired/ 0.6698 0.4762 2.390 0.1345 0.4657

Higher
On-record ALL 0.7589 0.3794 0.9566 0.8903 0.1771
193
After controlling for gender, overall, the odds of an on-record strategy in the learners
group are 0.759 times (or 24.11% less than) the odds of an on-record strategy in the RSs
group (p = .379). The results indicate that, overall, the L2 learners in the study were less
likely to use an on-record strategy than the Russian speakers. However, there is not
enough evidence to conclude that the differences are statistically significant. Moreover,
in all of the interactions, i.e., with friends, strangers, professors and hired persons, the L2
learners in the study were also less likely to use an on-record strategy than RSs, but the
differences again were not statistically significant. In sum, the hypothesis regarding the
use of on-record strategies by L2 learners and RSs was not proven.
4.3.1.4. Effect of gender on on-record strategies by considering social distance

and social power.
In regard to gender, as presented in table 22 in the previous section, the
interaction between group and gender is not significant (p = .177). This means that the
differences in the odds of an on-record strategy are similar for males and females within
each group and across groups. After having controlled for group, overall, the odds of
females using an on-record strategy are 0.957 times (or 4.34% less than) the odds of
males using an on-record strategy (p = .890). The odds ratios indicate that the males in
the study were more likely to use on-record strategies than females, but the differences
were not statistically significant.
In the interactions with hired persons, the odds of females using on-record
strategy were 2.39 times (or 139% greater than) the odds of males using the on-record
strategy (p = .134), and this was the only interaction in which the females in the study
were more likely to use on-record strategies than the males. However, the differences in
this interaction and in the other interactions are not statistically significant. Thus, there
194
was not enough evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between
genders in their use of on-record strategies. For that reason, the hypothesis regarding the
differences in use of on-record strategies between genders is not confirmed.
4.3.1.5. Differences between groups and genders based on the subcategories of

on-record strategies.
The table below shows the main findings based on the analysis of the
subcategories of on-record strategies.
Table 23
Subcategories of On-Record Strategies for Groups and Genders
OUTCOME Stratum41 GROUP GROUP Gender Gender INTERACTION

On-record S 2.139 0.0038 1.304 0.2784 0.4007
On-record H 0.9762 0.8927 0.7936 0.1987 0.0448 ***42
On-record S and H 0.5630 0.3266 0.7110 0.5650 0.4582
On-record IMP 0.8784 0.4647 1.062 0.7326 0.4176
On-record IMP-EX 0.4309 0.0170 1.162 0.6461 0.9725
On-record Ind. 0.2410 0.1051 1.144 0.8852 **43

As the results demonstrate, after controlling for the effect of gender, the odds of a
speaker-oriented strategy for L2 learners were 2.139 times (or 113.9% greater than) the
odds of the same strategy in the RSs group (p = .004). The results indicate that in the
population, L2 learners are more likely to use speaker-oriented strategy than RSs. This
41
As a reminder, S = Speaker-Oriented; H = Hearer-Oriented; S and H= Speaker- and Hearer-Oriented;
Imp. = Impersonal; Imp-Ex = Impersonal Expressions; Ind. = Indefinite-Personal.
42
There is a significant interaction between group and gender.
43
There were only five females who used this strategy, but all of them were in the RSs group. Therefore, it
was not possible to test the effect of the interaction.
195
difference may be ascribed to learners transfer of the speaker-oriented strategy from
their L1. Moreover, the results point to the fact that the L2 learners in the study were less
likely to use speaker- and hearer-oriented strategies, impersonal strategies, and
subjectless sentences (with impersonal expressions and indefinite-personal expressions)
than RSs. However, the differences observed were not statistically significant; thus, no
generalizations about the use of these subcategories can be made.
Table 23 also indicates, there is a significant interaction between group and
gender for the hearer-oriented strategy (p = .045). This means that the odds of the hearer-
oriented strategy for males and females are significantly different across groups and
within each group. For that reason, separate odds ratios were computed for all of the
combinations for group and gender since the odds ratios for the main effects are not
reliable for the interpretation. The new ratios are shown in Table 24:
Table 24
New Ratios for the Hearer-Oriented Strategy
Stratum GROUP GROUP GENDER GENDER INTERACTION

ODDS ODDS ODDS ODDS P-VALUE
RATIO RATIO RATIO RATIO
FOR FOR FOR L2 FOR RS
MALES FEMALES GROUP GROUP
H 0.6615 1.354 1.115 0.5446 0.0448
For the RSs group only, the odds of the hearer-oriented strategy for females are 1.354
times (or 35.4% greater than) the odds of this strategy for males. This difference points to
the fact that Russian females are more likely to use hearer-oriented strategies than
Russian males. For the L2 learners only, the odds of the hearer-oriented strategy for
females are 0.661 times (or 33.85% less than) the odds of this strategy for males. This
196
finding indicates that female learners are less likely to use hearer-oriented strategies than
male learners. For males only, the odds of a hearer-oriented strategy in the group of L2
learners are 0.661 times (or 33.85% less than) the odds of this strategy in the RSs group.
This result indicates that male learners are less likely to use hearer-oriented strategies
than Russian males. For females only, the odds of a hearer-oriented strategy in the
learners group are 1.354 times (or 35.4% greater than) the odds of this strategy in the
RSs group. This result indicates that female learners are more likely to use on-record
strategies than Russian females.
4.3.1.6. Perception of severity of offense by group and gender.
This part of the analysis addresses findings regarding the relationship between the
severity of offense and group, and the severity of offense and gender, independent of the
use of off- and on-record strategies. To assess the differences, a row mean score test was
employed using modified ridit scores.
As shown in Tables 25 and 26, L2 learners perception of the degree of severity
was significantly different than RSs perception (p < .001). Moreover, as Tables 27 and
28 demonstrate, there was not a significant difference in perception of the degree of
severity of offense between the genders (p = .161).
Table 25
Correlation between Severity of Offense and Group
Group Severity of Offense

L M S Total
L2 92 214 138 444
RS 24 158 178 360
Total 116 372 316 804
197
Table 26
Summary Statistics for Group by Severity of Offense
Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics (Modified Ridit Scores)

Statistic Alternative Hypothesis DF Value Prob
Row Mean Scores Differ 1 41.8198 <.0001
Table 27
Correlation between Severity of Offense and Gender
Gender Severity of Offense

L M S Total
F 61 207 188 456
M 55 165 128 348
Total 116 372 316 804
Table 28
Modified Ridit Scores for Gender
Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Statistics (Modified Ridit Scores)

Row Mean Scores Differ 1 1.9679 0.1607
RSs and L2 learners perceive the degree of severity of imposition different ways and
hence make different strategy selections and linguistic choices in a complaint situation.
4.3.1.6.1. Differences between groups and genders based on off-record strategies

and severity of offense.
To assess differences between groups and genders with regard to severity of
offense, a GEE approach was employed. The results show that the interaction between
severity of offense and group is not significant (p = .088). This finding means that the
relationship between severity of offense and an off-record strategy is similar for the L2
learners and for RSs. Similarly, the interaction between severity of offense and gender is
198
not significant (p = .353), which points to similar relationship between severity of offense
and an off-record strategy for males and females. Table 29 shows the results of the main
effects.
Table 29
Summary of Main Results for Off-Record Strategies
Source DF Chi-Square Pr > ChiSq

Group 1 6.02 0.0141
Severity of Offense 2 13.75 0.001
Gender 1 0.28 0.5935
As the table shows, after controlling for gender and group, there is a significant
relationship between an off-record strategy and the degree of severity (p = .001). There is
also a significant relationship between an off-record strategy and group (p = .014), after
controlling for the effects of severity of offense and gender. Finally, after controlling for
severity of offense and group, there is not a significant relationship between an off-record
strategy and gender (p = .593).
4.3.1.6.2. Differences between groups and genders based on on-record strategies

and severity of offense.
As in the case of off-record strategies, the interaction between the severity of
offense and group is not significant (p = .390), which means that the relationship between
severity of offense and an on-record strategy is similar for L2 learners and for RSs.
Similarly, the interaction between the severity of offense and gender is not significant (p
= .581), which means that the relationship between severity of offense and an on-record
strategy is similar for males and females.
As Table 30 demonstrates, after controlling for gender and group, there is a
significant relationship between an on-record strategy and the degree of severity (p =

199
.005). After controlling for severity of offense and gender, the relationship between an
on-record strategy and group is not significant (p = .807). Likewise, after controlling for
severity of offense and group, the relationship between an on-record strategy and gender
is not significant (p = .584).
Table 30
Summary of the Results for On-Record Strategies

Group 1 0.06 0.8069
Gender 1 0.3 0.5845
In sum, for off- and on-record strategies, the interactions between severity of
offense and group and the interactions between severity of offense and gender are not
significant. The results of the main effects show that there is a significant relationship
between the degree of severity of offense and off- and on-record strategies.
4.3.2. Differences in the level of directness in remedy.
To establish differences in directness level in remedy between L2 learners and
RSs and between genders, a GEE approach was employed using a Poisson model. The
ratio in this model is an incidence ratio. Table 31 demonstrates the results.
Table 31
Incidence Ratios for Direct and Indirect Requests, and Non-Negotiable Resolution for
Group and Gender
OUTCOME GROUP GROUP Gender Gender INTERACTION

Incidence P-VALUE Incidence P-VALUE P-VALUE
RATIO RATIO
Direct 1.298 0.0381 1.063 0.6399 0.6046
Request
Indirect 1.333 0.0412 1.300 0.0620 0.6957

200
Request
Non- 0.9001 0.7402 1.083 0.8113 0.8091

Negotiable
Resolution
The analysis demonstrates that the interaction between group and gender is not
significant for any of the strategies in remedy. After controlling for gender, the frequency
of direct requests is estimated to be 1.29 times (or 29% higher) for L2 learners than for
RSs (p = .038). These results would appear to contradict Hypothesis 1 that theorizes L2
learners use fewer direct requests than RSs. However, after controlling for gender, the
frequency of indirect requests is estimated to be 1.333 (or 33% higher) in the learners
group than in the RSs group (p = .041). These results, therefore, confirm Hypothesis 1
that proposes that L2 learners use more indirect request than RSs. Furthermore, the
incidence ratio for non-negotiable solution shows that the frequency of this strategy is
estimated to be 0.9 times (or 9% lower) in the learners group than that in the RSs group,
but this difference is not statistically significant (p = .740).
In sum, Hypothesis 1 was only partially confirmed since the results also show that
L2 learners are more likely to use direct requests than RSs. The main findings suggest
that in the population, L2 learners are more likely to use direct and indirect requests than
Russian native speakers when they propose a solution to a problem in a complaint
situation. The frequency of indirect requests in Russian may be attributed to learners
transfer from their L1 at the pragmalinguistic level. The learners frequent use of direct
requests may result from their uncertainty about what linguistic strategies to use in some
sociocultural contexts, as the qualitative analysis of supportive moves in Chapter 4. 2. has
demonstrated.
201
4.3.2.1. Effect of gender on directness level in remedy.
With regard to gender, there is not a significant interaction between group and
gender for any of the strategies (see again Table 31 in the section above). After
controlling for group, the incidence ratio indicates that the frequency of direct requests is
estimated to be 1.063 times (or 6.3% greater) for females than for males (p = .640). The
incident ratios for indirect requests and non-negotiable solution also indicate that the
frequencies of these strategies are greater for females than for males in the study, but the
differences are also not statistically significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 regarding
differences in the level of directness in requests between genders is not confirmed.
4.3.2.2. Differences between groups based on the subcategories of direct and

indirect requests.
Based on the descriptive statistics, no patterns can be observed in the sublevels of
direct requests between both language groups. No statistical analyses were conducted due
to the very small sample size of the subcategories. Nonetheless, the distribution of
indirect requests at the sublevels indicates differences between both language groups.
Based on the mean values in Tables 32 and 33, striking difference between L2 learners
and RSs were evident from their use of hearer-oriented strategies with the negated
particle and the modal verb in the past and present tense. As the tables below
show, L2 learners, on average, did not use any hearer-oriented strategies with the modal
verb in the past tense, and they more frequently used hearer-oriented strategies in the
present tense, which, in turn, RSs rarely used. Moreover, L2 learners, on average, more
frequently used hearer-oriented questions than RSs, particularly in their interactions with
friends and strangers. Although no statistical analyses were conducted due to a very small
sample size of each sub-strategy, the differences in hearer-oriented strategies in indirect

202
requests between L2 learners and native speakers provide an important area for
instructional intervention.
Table 32
Means and SDs for Sub-Strategies of Indirect Request for L2 by Social Distance and
Social Power
Social L2 Learners
Distance/
Social Power Means and SDs For Sub-Strategies of Indirect Request
H- H- Inter. Con Lets Inter.I S- S- S Unsp.

past pres. need wish and A
H
Friends/ 0 0.08 0.23 0.04 0.03 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04

Same (0) (0.27) (0.49) (0.19) (0.21) (0) (0.19) (0.15) (0.15) (0.19)
Stranger/Same 0 0.07 0.1 0.04 0.01 0 0.02 0 0.01 0.09

(0) (0.26) (0.38) (0.24) (0.09) (0) (0.13) (0) (0.09) (0.28)
Prof./ Higher 0 0.09 0.22 0.1 0.03 0 (0.1) 0.25 0.18 0.21
(0) (0.29) (0.45) (0.46) (0.17) (0) (0.35) (0.47) (0.49) (0.45)
Hired/ 0 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.04 0 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.07

Lower (0) (0.26) (0.17) (0.28) (0.27) (0) (0.47) (0.2) (0.17) (0.35)
Total 0 0.08 0.15 0.06 0.03 0 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.09

(0) (0.27) (0.41) (0.29) (0.19) (0) (0.28) (0.25) (0.24) (0.31)
Note. H-past = Hearer + past tense; H-pres. = Hearer + present tense; Inter. =
Interrogative; Con. = Conditional; Lets; Inter. I = Interrogative I; S-needs= Speakers
needs; S-wish = Speakers wish; S and H = Speaker and Hearer; Unsp. A = Unspecified
Agent
203
Table 33
Means and SDs for Sub-Strategies of Indirect Request for RSs by Social Distance and
Social Power
Social RS
Distance/ Mean and SD for Sub-Strategies of Indirect Request
Social
Power
H-past H- Inter. Con Lets Inter.I S-need S-wish S and Unsp.

pres. H A
Friends/ 0.10 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.008 0.008
Same (0.30) (0.09) (0.28) (0.21) (0.26) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.09) (0.09)
Stranger/ 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.10
Same (0.32) (0.09) (0.09) (0.09) (0.18) (0.00) (0.09) (0.13) (0.00) (0.30)
Prof./ 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.14 0.05 0.24 0.18
Higher (0.30) (0.00) (0.35) (0.13) (0.39) (0.19) (0.40) (0.23) (0.43) (0.39)
Hired/ 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.09
Lower (0.33) (0.00) (0.13) (0.00) (0.29) (0.00) (0.13) (0.13) (0.23) (0.35)
Total 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.08
(0.31) (0.23) (0.23) (0.14) (0.27) (0.08) (0.19) (013) (0.22) (0.28)
4.3.2.3. Differences in directness level in request related to severity of offense.
As in the case of off- and on-record strategies, to assess differences between
groups and genders by considering severity of offense, a GEE approach was employed
using a Poisson distribution. With regard to direct request, the results indicate that the
interaction between severity of offense and group is not significant (p = .204). This result
means that the relationship between severity of offense and direct request is similar for
L2 learners and for RSs. Likewise, the interaction between severity of offense and gender
is not significant (p = .404). This finding means that the relationship between severity of
offense and direct request is similar for males and females.

204
Table 34 shows the results of the main effects. After controlling for severity of
offense and gender, the relationship between direct requests and group is significant (p =
.031). The results also show that there is not a significant relationship between direct
requests and severity of offense (p = .456) or between direct requests and gender (p =
.680).
Table 34
Summary of the Main Effects for Direct Request

Group 1 4.64 0.0312
Gender 1 0.17 0.6796
With regard to indirect request, the interaction between group and severity is not
significant (p = .571). Similarly, the interaction between severity of offense and gender is
not significant (p = .927). As Table 35 indicates, when gender and group are controlled,
there is a significant relationship between indirect requests and the severity of offense (p
< .001). Likewise, when severity of offense and group are controlled, the relationship
between indirect requests and gender is significant (p = .026). However, when severity of
offense and gender are controlled, the relationship between indirect requests and group is
not significant (p = .244).

205
Table 35
Summary of the Main Effects for Indirect Request

Group 1 1.36 0.2437
Gender 1 4.96 0.0259
Severity of Offense 2 19.09 <.0001
In short, when the severity of offense was taken into consideration, there were
similar differences within and across groups of RSs and L2 learners in their use of direct
and indirect requests. Similar differences were also observed between males and females
in their use of direct and indirect requests.
4.4. Differences between Groups and Genders based on the Number of Words and
Moves
Apart from groups and genders, the relationship between words and moves was
also evaluated. The results show that there is a significant positive linear correlation
between words and moves (r = .831, p < .001). This result means that a larger number of
words results in a larger number of moves, and a smaller number of words is related to a
smaller number of moves. Moreover, there is a significant positive linear correlation
between the average number of words and moves for each participant in the study (r =
.996, p < .001).
To establish differences in the number of words and moves between groups and
genders, a GEE approach was employed using a linear model. For groups, there is a
significant positive linear correlation between the average number of words and moves
for the learners group (r > .999, p < .001), with an average of 67 words for each
participant in this group. Likewise, there is a significant positive linear correlation

206
between the average number of words and moves in the RSs group (r = .999, p < .001),
with an average of 30 words for each participant. In sum, a larger number of words is
associated with a larger number of moves in the L2 learners group and the RSs group.
Moreover, the results indicate that L2 learners use twice as many words and moves as
RSs, which confirms Hypothesis 1, which posited that L2 learners would use more words
and moves than Russian native speakers.
Similar results were obtained for genders. There is a significant positive linear
correlation between the average number of words and moves for females (r = .999, p <
.001), with an average of 38 words for each female. Furthermore, there is a significant
positive linear correlation between the average number of words and moves for males (r
> .999, p < .001), with an average number of 29 words for each male. To conclude, a
larger number of words is associated with a larger number of moves for females and
males. Moreover, on average, females use more words and moves than males.
Table 36 summarizes the main findings for the number of words for groups and
genders when the parameters of social distance and social power were taken into
consideration (see Appendix L for a summary of the number of moves).

207
Table 36
Parameter Estimates for Words for Groups and Genders

Parameter P- Parameter P- P-VALUE
estimate VALUE estimate VALUE
Words f/s 29.46 <0.0001 5.28 0.3292 0.7306
Words s/s 14.14 <0.0001 -3.26 0.2248 0.0383 *
Words p/h 38.68 <0.0001 11.08 0.1283 0.0882
Words h/l 19.14 <0.0001 -10.66 0.3894 0.0196 *
Words ALL 30.29 <0.0001 5.87 0.2374 0.1406

The table illustrates that both overall and in the situations with friends and professors, the
interaction between group and gender is not statistically significant. After controlling for
gender, overall, the predicted difference in the average number of words is 30.29 greater
for learners as compared to RSs (p < .001). After controlling for group, the predicted
difference in the average number of words is 5.87 greater for females as compared to
males, but the difference is not statistically significant (p = .237).
Furthermore, in the interactions with friends, the predicted difference in the
average number of words is 29.46 greater for learners as compared to RSs (p < .001).
After controlling for group, the predicted difference in the average number of words is
5.28 greater for females as compared to males, but the difference is not statistically
significant (p = .329). In the interactions with professors, the predicted difference in the
average number of words is 38.68 greater for learners as compared to RSs (p < .001).
After controlling for group, the predicted difference in the average number of words is
11.08 greater for females versus males, but the difference is not statistically significant (p
208
= .128). In sum, overall and in the specific interactions with friends and professors, on
average, L2 learners are predicted to use more words and moves than RSs, and females
are predicted to employ more words and moves than males.
In addition, the use of a linear model allowed for the calculation of the predicted
average number of words and moves for each group and gender. The tables below
summarize the calculated average number of words for groups and genders when the
parameters of social distance and social power were considered (see Appendix M for a
summary of the calculated average number of moves for groups and genders). As Table
37 shows, overall, the predicted average number of words for learners is 59.17 and 28.88
for RSs. For genders, overall, the predicted average number of words for females is 46.97
and 41.09 for males. The results reinforce both Hypothesis 1, which posited that L2
learners would use more words and moves than Russian native speakers, and Hypothesis
2, which posited that females would use more words than males.
Table 37
Average Number of Words in All of the Interactions for Groups and Genders
Effect Gr Gen Estimate Std Err DF Chi-Sq Pr > ChiSq

Mean L'Beta
Group L2 59.1797 59.1797 3.9855 1 220.48 <.0001
Group RS 28.8887 28.8887 2.7852 1 107.58 <.0001
Gender F 46.9734 46.9734 3.7831 1 154.17 <.0001
Gender M 41.095 41.095 3.0494 1 181.61 <.0001
Note. Gr = Group; Gen = Gender; Std Err = Standard Error; Chi-Sq = Chi-Square
Table 38 shows that in the specific interactions with friends, the predicted average
number of words for learners is 58.09 and 28.63 for RSs. Moreover, the predicted
average number of words for females is 46.00 and 40.71 for males.
209
Table 38
Average Number of Words in the Interactions with Friends for Groups and Genders

Mean L'Beta
Group L2 58.0906 58.0906 4.3497 1 178.36 <.0001
Group RS 28.6328 28.6328 2.8698 1 99.54 <.0001
Gender F 46.0053 46.0053 3.8598 1 142.06 <.0001
Gender M 40.7182 40.7182 3.5829 1 129.15 <.0001
Table 39 demonstrates that in the interactions with professors, the predicted average
number of words for learners is 75.10 and 36.43 for RSs, while the predicted average
number of words for females is 61.30 and 50.22 for males.
Table 39
Average Number of Words in the Interactions with Professors for Groups and Genders

Mean L'Beta
Group L2 75.1067 75.1067 6.0655 1 153.33 <.0001
Group RS 36.4304 36.4304 3.4603 1 110.84 <.0001
gender F 61.3096 61.3096 5.8115 1 111.3 <.0001
gender M 50.2274 50.2274 3.9191 1 164.25 <.0001
Table 36 (see the beginning of this section) illustrates that the interaction between group
and gender is statistically significant for the situations with strangers and hired persons,
which means that the predicted differences in the average number of words are different
for males and females within each group and across groups. For that reason, separate
estimates have been done for all of the combinations for group and gender since the
estimations for the main effects are not reliable for the interpretation. As Table 40 below
demonstrates, in the interactions with strangers, the predicted average number of words
210
for female learners is 48.61 and 37.12 for male learners, while the predicted average
number of words for Russian females is 19.70 and 22.97 for Russian males.
Table 40
Average Number of Words in the Interactions with Strangers for Groups and Genders

Mean L'Beta
Group* gender L2 F 48.61 48.61 3.1001 1 245.87 <.0001
Group* gender L2 M 37.1228 37.1228 4.2929 1 74.78 <.0001
Group* gender RS F 19.7097 19.7097 3.1634 1 38.82 <.0001
Group*gender RS M 22.9732 22.9732 2.7455 1 70.02 <.0001
Table 41 shows that in the interactions with hired persons, the predicted average number
of words for female learners is 83.51 and 61.18 for male learners. Moreover, the
predicted average number of words for Russian females is 31.37 and 42.04 for Russian
males.
Table 41
Average Number of Words in the Interactions with Hired Persons for Groups and
Genders

Mean L'Beta
Group* gender L2 F 83.5135 83.5135 10.6577 1 61.4 <.0001
Group* gender L2 M 61.1821 61.1821 5.2039 1 138.22 <.0001
Group* gender RS F 31.3784 31.3784 3.7065 1 71.67 <.0001
Group*gender RS M 42.0404 42.0404 5.2034 1 65.28 <.0001
In sum, the results show that L2 learners and Russian native speakers use more words
with friends than with strangers, and they use the highest average number of words with
status unequals. These results contradict Wolfsons (1988) Bulge Theory, which
theorizes that speakers negotiate more with the interlocutors with whom the relationships
211
are not fixed, such as in the case of friends in the present study, but they negotiate less
with strangers and status unequals with whom the social distance and status are fixed
(74), which was only partially confirmed in this study.
4.4.1. Differences in the number of words and moves related to severity of

offense.
4.4.1.1. Differences between groups and genders based on the number of words.
offense, a GEE approach was employed using the identity link. With regard to the
number of words, the results show that the interaction between severity of offense and
group is significant (p < .001). This result points to a different relationship between
severity of offense and the number of words for L2 learners and for RSs. The interaction
between severity of offense and gender is not significant (p = .109). This result means
that the relationship between severity of offense and the number of words is similar for
males and females.
Table 42 demonstrates the results of the main effects and of the interaction
between severity of offense and group. As the table shows, overall, L2 learners used a
significantly larger number of words than RSs on average (p < .001). There is also a
significant relationship between the degree of severity of offense and the number of
words (p < .001), which means that severe offense is associated with a larger number of
words than low offense. Finally, the relationship between gender and the number of
words is not significant (p = .345).

212
Table 42
Results of the Main Effects and the Interaction between Group and Severity of Offense

Group 1 21.92 <.0001
Gender 1 0.89 0.3447
Group*Severity of Offense 2 19.35 <.0001
Since the interaction between group and severity of offense is significant (p <. 001), the
predicted differences in the average number of words have to be estimated for all of the
combinations of group and severity of offense since the estimations for the main effects
are not reliable for the interpretation. As shown in Table 43, after controlling for gender,
the predicted average number of words for L2 learners with low severity of offense is
48.05, as compared to 26.56 in the RSs group. Furthermore, the predicted average
number of words for L2 learners with moderate severity of offense is 54.21, as compared
to 29.18 in the native speakers group. Finally, the predicted average number of words for
learners with severe offense is 73.18, as compared to 28.92 in the group of RSs. The
relationship between the severity of offense and the number of words is more positive in
the learners group than in the RSs group.

213
Table 43
Predicated Average Number of Words for Each Combination of Group and Severity of
Offense
Group Severity Estimate Std Error z Value Pr > |z|

of Offense
L2 L 48.0556 4.5617 10.53 <.0001
L2 M 54.2123 3.2628 16.62 <.0001
L2 S 73.1819 5.9422 12.32 <.0001
RS L 26.5668 4.4743 5.94 <.0001
RS M 29.1876 2.7246 10.71 <.0001
RS S 28.9213 2.9674 9.75 <.0001
With regard to gender, as Table 44 shows, the predicted average number of words
does not significantly differ between females and males (45.67 for females vs. 41.03 for
males).
Table 44
Predicted Average Number of Words for Males and Females
Gender Estimate Std Error z Value Pr > |z|

F 45.6747 3.9755 11.49 <.0001
M 41.0338 3.0702 13.37 <.0001
4.4.1.2. Differences between groups and genders based on the number of moves.
Just as for the number of words, a GEE approach was employed using the identity
link to assess the differences between groups and genders from the point of view of
severity of offense. With regard to the number of moves, the interaction between severity
of offense and group is significant (p = .005). This result means that the relationship
between severity of offense and the number of moves is different for L2 learners and for
RSs. The interaction between severity of offense and gender is not significant (p = .139),
214
which means that the relationship between severity of offense and the number of moves
is similar for males and females.
Table 45 summarizes the results of the main effects and of the interaction between
severity of offense and group. As apparent from the table, overall, L2 learners used more
moves than RSs, and this difference was statistically significant (p < .001). There is also a
significant relationship between the severity of offense and the number of moves (p <
.001), which means that severe offense is related with more moves than low offense.
Finally, there is not a significant relationship between gender and the number of moves (p
= 0.454).
Table 45
Results of the Main Effects and the Interaction between Severity of Offense and Group

Group 1 19.92 <.0001
Gender 1 0.56 0.4545
Group*Severity of Offense 2 10.44 0.0054
Since the interaction between severity of offense and group is significant, the
predicted average number of moves has to be estimated for all of the combinations of
group and severity of offense. As Table 46 demonstrates, after controlling for the effect
of gender, the predicted average number of moves for L2 learners with low severity of
offense is 5.69, as compared to 3.81 in the group of RSs. For moderate offense, the
predicted average number of moves for L2 learners is 5.81, as compared to 4.19 in the
group of native speakers. Finally, the predicted average number of moves for L2 learners
who perceive the offense as severe is 7.11, as compared to 4.46 in the RSs group. It
215
appears that the relationship between an increasing degree of severity and an increasing
number of moves is more positive for L2 learners than for RSs.
Table 46
Predicted Average Number of Moves of Each Combination of Group and Severity of

Offense
Group Severity Estimate Std Error z Value Pr > |z|

of Offense
L2 L 5.6949 0.3332 17.09 <.0001
L2 M 5.8107 0.2506 23.19 <.0001
L2 S 7.117 0.411 17.32 <.0001
RS L 3.8171 0.3013 12.67 <.0001
RS M 4.1996 0.2606 16.12 <.0001
RS S 4.4635 0.2779 16.06 <.0001
With regard to gender, as Table 47 indicates, the predicted average number of moves
does not significantly differ for females and males (5.32 vs. 5.04).
Table 47
Predicted Average Number of Moves for Genders
Gender Estimate Std Error z Value Pr > |z|

F 5.3226 0.3055 17.42 <.0001
M 5.0451 0.2163 23.32 <.0001
In sum, the relationship between the severity of offense and the number of words
and moves is different for L2 learners and for RSs. The results indicate that L2 learners
on average use a significantly larger number of words and moves than RSs. With regard
to gender, there is not a significant difference between genders in the predicted average
number of words and moves when the severity of offense is taken into consideration.
216
4.5. Differences in the Frequency of Upgraders and Downgraders for Groups and
Genders
To establish the frequency of upgraders and downgraders for groups and genders,
a GEE approach was employed using a Poisson model. The ratio in this model is an
incidence ratio.
4.5.1. Frequency of upgraders related to social distance and social power.
The table below summarizes the main results based on the incidence ratios for
upgraders when social distance and social power were considered.
Table 48
Incidence Ratios for Upgraders for Group and Gender
OUTCOME Stratum GROUP GROUP GENDER GENDER INTERACTION

Incidence P- Incidence P- P-VALUE
Upgraders f/s 0.7291 0.1097 0.9902 0.9588 0.0470 ***44
Upgraders s/s 0.8231 0.4005 0.8876 0.5889 0.0003 ***
Upgraders p/l 0.7092 0.3267 1.7128 0.1337 0.1536
Upgraders h/h 1.084 0.6673 1.055 0.7794 0.0322 ***
Upgraders ALL 0.8211 0.1718 1.0147 0.9169 0.0006 ***

The table shows that in all of the interactions except for those with professors, there is a
significant interaction between group and gender. This finding means that the incidence
ratios for upgraders are different for males and females across groups and within each
group. For that reason, separate odds ratios were computed for all of the combinations for
group and gender since the incidence ratios for the main effects are not reliable for the
analysis. The new odds ratios are presented in Table 49.
44
There is a significant interaction between group and gender; therefore, the incidence ratios for main
effects are not reliable for the interpretation.
217
Table 49
New Odds Ratios for Upgraders for Groups and Genders

ODDS ODDS ODDS ODDS P-VALUE
RATIO RATIO RATIO RATIO
FOR FOR FOR L2 FOR RS
MALES FEMALES GROUP GROUP
Upgraders f/s 0.5087 1.045 1.419 0.6909 0.0470
Upgraders s/s 0.3564 1.090 2.049 0.3844 0.0003
Upgraders h/h 0.7356 1.596 1.553 0.7160 0.0322
Upgraders all 0.5001 1.348 1.666 0.6180 0.0006

For males only, in the interactions with friends, the odds of upgraders in the learners
group are 0.509 times (or 49.13 % less than) the odds of this strategy in the RSs group.
In the interactions with strangers, the odds of upgraders for learners are 0.356 times (or
64.36% less than) the odds of this strategy for RSs. In the interactions with hired persons,
the odds of upgraders in the group of L2 learners are 0.736 times (or 26.44% less than)
the odds of this strategy in the RSs group. In all the interactions, the odds of upgraders in
the learners group are 0.5 times (or 49.99% less than) the odds of this strategy in the
RSs group. These results indicate that male L2 learners are less likely to use upgraders
than Russian males in their interactions with friends, strangers, hired persons, and overall
in all these interactions.
For females only, in the interactions with friends, the odds of upgraders in the
learners group are 1.045 times (or 4.5% greater than) the odds of this strategy in the
RSs group. In the interactions with strangers, the odds of upgraders in the learners
group are 1.09 times (or 9% greater than) the odds of this strategy in the RSs group. In
218
the interactions with hired persons, the odds of upgraders in the learners group are 1.596
times (or 59.6% greater than) the odds of this strategy in the RSs group. Overall in all of
the interactions, the odds of upgraders in the learners group are 1.348 times (or 34.8%
greater than) the odds of this strategy in the RSs group. These results indicate that
female learners are more likely to use upgraders in their interactions with friends,
strangers, hired persons, and overall in all the interactions than Russian females.
For learners only, in the interactions with friends, the odds of upgraders for
females are 0.509 times (or 49.13% less than) the odds of this strategy for males. In the
interactions with strangers, the odds of upgraders for females are 0.356 times (or 64.36%
less than) the odds of this strategy for males. In the interactions with hired persons, the
odds of upgraders for females are 0.736 times (or 26.44% less than) the odds of this
strategy for males. Overall in all of the interactions, the odds of upgraders for females are
0.5 times (or 49.99% less than) the odds of this strategy for males. The results indicate
that in their interactions with friends, strangers, hired persons, and overall in all of the
interactions, female learners are less likely to use upgraders than male learners. These
results confirm Hypothesis 2, according to which male learners are posited use more
upgraders than female learners.
For the RSs group only, in the interactions with friends, the odds of upgraders
for females are 1.045 times (or 4.5% greater than) the odds of this strategy for males. In
the interactions with strangers, the odds of upgraders for females are 1.09 times (or 9%
greater than) the odds of this strategy for males. In the interactions with hired persons, the
odds of upgraders for females are 1.596 times (or 59.6% greater than) the odds of this
strategy for males. Overall in all of the interactions, the odds of upgraders for females are
219
1.348 times (or 34.8% greater than) the odds of this strategy for males. The results
indicate that in the interactions with friends, strangers, hired persons, and overall in all of
the speech interactions under study, Russian females are more likely to use upgraders
than Russian males. These results do not confirm Hypothesis 2, according to which
Russian males were predicted to use more upgraders than Russian females.
4.5.2. Frequency of downgraders related to social distance and social power.
The results for the frequency of downgraders are summarized in Table 50.
Table 50
Incidence Ratios for Downgraders for Group and Gender
OUTCOME Stratum GROUP GROUP GENDER GENDER INTERACTION

Incidence P- Incidence P- P-VALUE
downgraders f/s 2.522 0.0051 1.053 0.8553 0.4631
downgraders s/s 1.207 0.6201 0.7608 0.4935 0.5360
downgraders p/l 2.654 0.0058 1.263 0.4455 0.8017
downgraders h/h 2.069 0.0653 0.8573 0.6703 0.6287
downgraders ALL 2.079 0.0014 0.9703 0.8836 0.6818

The table demonstrates that there is not a significant interaction between group and
gender when social distance and social power are considered. After controlling for
gender, overall, the incidence of downgraders is estimated to be 2.079 times (or 107.9%
greater) in the learners group than in the RSs group, and this difference is statistically
significant (p = .001). The results confirm Hypothesis 1, according to which L2 learners
use more downgraders than RSs.
Moreover, the results show that, in all interactions, the learners in the study used
more downgraders than RSs. The differences were statistically significant for the
220
interactions with friends (p = .005) and with professors (p = .006). In sum, with at least
95% confidence, we can conclude that in the population, the frequency of downgraders is
greater for L2 learners in their interactions with professors and friends than for Russian
native speakers.
With regard to gender, after controlling for group, the results indicate that, on the
whole, the incidence of downgraders is estimated to be 0.97 times (or 2.97% less) for
females than for males (p = .884). Moreover, in their interactions with strangers and hired
persons, there was a lower frequency of downgraders in the group of females as
compared to males, but the differences were not statistically significant. Therefore, the
hypothesis regarding posited differences between genders based on the frequency of
downgraders is not confirmed.
4.5.3. Frequency of upgraders and downgraders related to severity of offense.
offense, a GEE approach was employed using a Poisson distribution. In regard to
upgraders, the results show that the interaction between severity of offense and group is
not significant (p = .657). This finding means that the relationship between severity of
offense and upgraders is similar for L2 learners and for RSs. Similarly, the interaction
between severity of offense and gender is not significant (p = .589), which indicates
similar relationship between severity of offense and upgraders for males and females.
Table 51 demonstrates that after controlling for group and gender, there is a
significant relationship between the odds of upgraders and the degree of severity of
offense (p < .001). After controlling for severity of offense and gender, there is not a
significant relationship between upgraders and group (p = .921). Likewise, after

221
controlling for group and severity of offense, there is not a significant relationship
between upgraders and gender (p = .687).
Table 51
Summary of the Main Effects for Upgraders

Group 1 0.01 0.9217
Gender 1 0.16 0.6874
With regard to downgraders, the interaction between group and severity could not be
estimated because no RSs used downgraders when the severity of offense was low.
Moreover, the interaction between severity of offense and gender is not significant (p =
.703).
Table 52 demonstrates the results of the main effects. After controlling for
severity of offense and gender, there is a significant relationship between downgraders
and group (p < .002). After controlling for severity of offense and group, there is not a
significant relationship between downgraders and gender (p = .906). Similarly, after
controlling for group and gender, there is not a significant relationship between
downgraders and the severity of offense (p = .863).
Table 52
Summary of the Main Effects for Downgraders

Group 1 9.97 0.0016
Gender 1 0.01 0.9065
222
The absence of downgraders in the group of RSs indicates that, unlike L2 learners,
Russian native speakers do not lessen the imposition upon the hearer when they perceive
the severity of offense as low. This difference reflects sociocultural norms underlying
both cultures.
4.5.4. Differences between groups based on the subcategories of upgraders

and downgraders.
As the summary of means and standard deviations for the subgroups of
downgraders in Table 53 indicates, on average, L2 learners used more subjectivizers than
RSs (M = 0.20, M = 0.05), which was attributed to learners L1 transfer at the
pragmalinguistic level, since subjectivizers often occurred in the data of ASs. Moreover,
in their interactions with friends, professors, and hired persons, L2 learners used more
understaters than RSs in order to mitigate the offense. As the table shows, both groups
least frequently used appealers. No statistical analyses were conducted due to the very
small sample size of each of the subcategories.
Table 53
Means and DSs for the Subgroups of Downgraders for L2 and RS
Social L2 (N=37) RS (N=30)

Distance Mean and SD Mean and SD of the Sub-Groups
/ of Subgroups of Downgraders of Downgraders
Social
Power
Down Und Hedge Subj Caj App Dow Und Hegde Subj Caj App
er s n er s
Friends/ 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00
Same (0.16) (0.35 (0.1 (0.3 (0.2 (0.0 (0.14 (0.14 (0.1 (0.1 (0.2 (0.0
) 3) 3) 2) 0) ) ) 4) 0) 2) 0)
Stranger 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01
/ Same (0.11) (0.11 (0.1 (0.3 (0.1 (0.1 (0.21 (0.15 (0.1 (0.2 (0.2 (0.1
) 1) 6) 5) 1) ) ) 1) 1) 1) 1)
223
Professor 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.51 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.00
/Lower (0.38) (0.30 (0.1 (0.5 (0.1 (0.0 (0.15 (0.15 (0.2 (0.3 (0.2 (0.0
) 4) 8) 4) 0) ) ) 0) 4) 0) 0)
Hired/ 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.00
Higher (0.13) (0.40 (0.0 (0.3 (0.3 (0.0 (0.00 (0.20 (0.2 (0.2 (0.2 (0.0
) 0) 8) 3) 0) ) ) 0) 0) 7) 0)
Total of 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.00
Means (0.20) (0.31 (0.1 (0.4 (0.2 (0.0 (0.16 (0.16 (0.1 (0.2 (0.2 (0.0
) 1) 2) 2) 6) ) ) 6) 1) 2) 6)
Note. Down = Downtoners; Under = Understaters; Hedges; Subj. = Subjectivizers; Caj. =

Cajolers; App. = Appealers
Table 54 summarizes the means and SDs for the subcategories of upgraders. The
table shows, contrary to the expectations, that L2 learners on average used more
intensifiers than native speakers (similar to the findings of Olshtain & Weinbach, 1993).
A thorough analysis of the examples with intensifiers allows for the conclusion that
learners employed intensifiers in their attempts to explain their frustration and clarify
their reaction rather than to intensify their complaints, which is in line with Olshtain and
Weinbachs (1993) conclusions.
Furthermore, as shown in the table, RSs used more lexical intensifiers than L2
learners (M = 0.32, M = 0.13), particularly in their interactions with friends and strangers,
which reinforces the results obtained in the qualitative analysis.

224
Table 54
Means and SDs for the Subgroups of Upgraders for L2 and RS
Social L2 (N=37) RS (N=30)

Distance/ Mean and SD Mean and SD
Social of Subgroups of Upgraders of Subgroups of Upgraders
Power
Intens. Comm. Lex. Intens. Comm. Lex.
Friends 0.48 (0.73) 0.03 0.21 0.51 0.01 0.44

/Same (0.16) (0.48) (0.65) (0.10) (0.76)
Stranger/ 0.54 0.00 0.11 0.36 0.00 0.36

Same (0.80) (0.00) (0.36) (0.55) (0.00) (0.65)
Professor/ 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.02

Lower (0.51) (0.14) (0.00) (0.36) (0.34) (0.15)
Hired 0.86 0.02 0.11 0.53 0.02 0.29

/Higher (0.86) (0.13) (0.32) (0.70) (0.14) (0.50)
Total of 0.53 0.02 0.13 0.41 0.03 0.32

Means (0.77) (0.12) (0.38) (0.60) (0.17) (0.63)
Note. Inten.= Intensifiers; Comm. = Commitment upgraders; Lex. = Lexical intensifiers
4.6. Effect of Proficiency Level on Complaints
This section reports on main differences between the L2 learners at the
intermediate and advanced level based on their use of off- and on-record strategies,
directness level in request, the frequency of downgraders and upgraders, and the number
of words and moves when the parameters of social distance and social power were taken
into consideration. If the difference between intermediate learners and advanced learners
was statistically significant, both groups would be compared to RSs in order to determine
which language group more closely approximated native speakers norms. If the
225
difference was not statistically significant, no comparison with native speakers was
conducted, and the analysis was treated as complete. To assess the differences between
learners, the same statistical models were used as in the previous analyses. Thus, they
will not be described in this section.
4.6.1. Differences between intermediate and advanced learners based on

usage of off- and on-record strategies.
Table 55 summarizes the main findings for learners at both proficiency levels
with regard to off- and on-record strategies when the parameters of social distance and
social power were considered.
Table 55
Off-Record Strategies for Groups and for Genders by Social Distance and Social Power
OUTCOME Stratum GROUP P-VALUE Gender Gender

ODDS ODDS P-VALUE
RATIO for RATIO for
L2 Adv Female
versus L2 versus Male
Inter
Off-record Friends/ 1.874 0.3159 0.6869 0.5150
Same
Off-record Stranger/ 1.195 0.7699 0.7290 0.5772

Same
Off-record Professor/ 2.018 0.3242 1.966 0.2687

Lower
Off-record Hired/ 0.8390 0.8510 0.2602 0.1691

Higher
Off-record ALL 1.426 0.3758 0.7850 0.5549

Note. L2 Adv. = L2 learners at the advanced level; L2 Inter.= L2 learners at the
intermediate level
After controlling for gender, the odds overall of an off-record strategy for advanced
learners are 1.426 times (or 42.6% greater than) the odds of this strategy for intermediate
226
learners on average (p = .376). Furthermore, in the interactions with friends, strangers,
and professors, the odds of an off-record strategy are greater for advanced learners than
for intermediate learners, but these differences are not statistically significant. The
interaction with hired persons is the only one in which the odds of an off-record strategy
are greater for intermediate learners than for advanced learners (19.1% greater for the
intermediate group; p = .851).
After controlling for the effect of group, the odds overall of an off-record strategy
for females are 0.785 times (or 21.55 % less than) the odds of this strategy for males (p =
.555). In the interactions with friends, strangers, and hired persons, the odds of an off-
record strategy for males are greater than the odds of this strategy for females, but these
differences are not statistically significant. The interaction with professors is the only one
in which the odds of females using an off-record strategy are greater than the odds of
males using this strategy (p = .269).
Table 56 summarizes the results for groups and genders with regard to an on-
record strategy when the parameters of social distance and social power were taken into
consideration.
Table 56
On-Record Strategies for Groups and Genders
OUTCOME Stratum GROUP GROUP Gender Gender

ODDS P-VALUE ODDS P-VALUE
RATIO RATIO
On-record Friends/ 0.5574 0.3015 1.356 0.5698
Same
On-record Stranger/ 0.9440 0.9094 1.629 0.3503

Same
On-record Professor/ 0.5855 0.4505 0.7487 0.6332

227
Lower
On-record Hired/ 0.8441 0.8327 1.720 0.4902

Higher
On-record ALL 0.7355 0.4581 1.307 0.5321

After controlling for gender, overall, the odds of an on-record strategy for advanced
learners are 0.735 times (or 26.45% less than) the odds of this strategy for intermediate
learners (p = .458). In the interactions with friends, strangers, professors, and hired
persons, the odds of advanced learners using an on-record strategy are lower than the
odds of intermediate learners using this strategy, but the differences are not significant.
For genders, after controlling for group, the odds overall of an on-record strategy
for females are 1.307 times (or 30.75% greater than) the odds of this strategy for males (p
= .533). As the table shows, the interaction with professors is the only one in which the
odds of an on-record strategy are lower for females than for males (p = .633). To
conclude, the results show that there is not a significant difference between genders in
their use of an on-record strategy.
In sum, statistically significant differences between intermediate and advanced
learners were not observed in the case of directness level in complaints. Although, on
average, the advanced learners in the study were more likely to use off-record and less
likely to use on-record strategies than intermediate learners, there was not enough
evidence to conclude that there are significant differences in odds of these strategies
between the groups. Moreover, the results indicate that there are not significant
differences between genders in their use of off- and on-record strategies. For these
reasons, no further comparisons with RSs norms were conducted. However, it has to be
228
emphasized that these non-significant differences in the present study may result from a
small sample size of each strategy. It is possible that a larger number of learners at both
proficiency levels might generate significant differences in the strategy selection. To
conclude, Hypothesis 3, according to which learners at the advanced level use more
nativelike structures than learners at the intermediate level in regard to off- and on-record
strategies, was consistent with the data collected, but did not rise to the level of statistical
significance.
4.6.2. Differences among learners based on the subcategories of on-record

strategies.
Table 57 summarizes the results obtained for groups and genders based on the
subcategories of on-record strategies.
Table 57
Subcategories of On-Record Strategies for Groups and Genders

ODDS P-VALUE ODDS P-VALUE
RATIO RATIO
On-record S 0.7783 0.4434 1.083 0.7803
On-record H 0.9751 0.9116 1.111 0.6589
On-record S and H 1.294 0.8159 0.4116 0.4010
On-record IMP 0.8224 0.5432 1.196 0.5120
On-record IMP-EX 0.9004 0.8677 1.133 0.8248
On-record Ind. *45 * * *

The table indicates that the odds of the speaker- and hearer-oriented strategy for
advanced learners are 1.294 times (or 29.4% greater than) the odds of this strategy for
45
There were only two males who used this strategy. Thus, no results could be reported.
229
intermediate learners (p = .816). In regard to the other strategies, the odds of advanced
learners using these strategies are lower than the odds of intermediate learners employing
the same strategies. None of the differences are statistically significant.
For genders, the speaker- and hearer-oriented strategy is the only one for which
the odds of males using this strategy are greater than the odds of females employing this
strategy (p = .401). The odds of the other strategies are greater for females than for males,
but none of the differences are statistically significant.
To conclude, the analysis of the subcategories of the on-record strategies shows
that there are not significant differences between intermediate and advanced learners or
between genders in their use of these categories. However, as in the previous analysis,
non-significant results may have resulted from a small sample size of the responses.
4.6.3. The perception of severity of offense by groups and genders.
Independent of off- and on- record strategies, the relationship between the
severity of offense and group has been assessed. As shown in the tables below, there is
not enough evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between L2 learners
at the intermediate and the advanced levels in their perception of the degree of severity of
offense (p = .570).
Table 58
Results for Severity of Offense and Groups
GROUP L2 Severity of Offense

L M S Total
L2 Adv 31 71 42 144
L2 Inter 61 143 96 300
Total 92 214 138 444
Frequency Missing46 = 720
46
Present chart omits ASs and RSs groups.
230
Table 59
Summary Statistics for Groups by Severity of Offense

Row Mean Scores Differ 1 0.3231 0.5697
The analysis shows the assessment of the relationship between gender and the severity of
offense only for the advanced learners. The intermediate learners were excluded since the
analysis conducted for Hypothesis 1 included all L2 learners.
Table 60
Results for Gender by Severity of Offense
Participant Gender Severity of Offense

L M S Total
F 51 128 97 276
M 41 86 41 168
Total 92 214 138 444
Table 61
Summary Statistics for Gender by Severity of Offense

2 Row Mean Scores Differ 1 5.8439 0.0156
The results demonstrate that there is a significant difference between males and females
in the group of advanced learners in their perception of the degree of severity of offense
(p = .016).
4.6.4. Directness level in remedy.
Intermediate learners were compared to advanced learners with regard to
directness level in the semantic category of remedy. Table 62 summarizes the results for
231
direct requests for groups and genders when the parameters of social distance and social
power were considered.
Table 62
Summary of Direct Requests for Groups and Genders

INCIDENCE INCIDENCE P-VALUE
RATIO for RATIO for
L2 Adv Female
Inter
Direct Friends/ 0.8135 0.4193 0.9741 0.8946
request Same
Direct Stranger/ 0.6607 0.1293 1.506 0.1661

request Same
Direct Professor/ 0.8256 0.7871 1.660 0.4086

request Lower
Direct Hired/ 0.9482 0.8731 0.9531 0.8622

request Higher
TOTAL ALL 0.8006 0.2325 1.096 0.5287

After controlling for gender, the incidence overall of direct requests is estimated to be 0.8
times (or 19.94% lower) for advanced learners than for intermediate learners (p = .232).
In the other interactions, the incidence of direct requests is estimated to be lower for
advanced learners as compared to intermediate learners, but the differences are not
statistically significant.
After controlling for group, the incidence overall of direct requests is estimated to
be 1.096 times (or 9.6% greater) for females as compared to males (p =.529). In the
interactions with strangers and professors, the incidences of direct requests are estimated
to be greater for females as compared to males, but these differences are not significant.
232
In the interactions with friends and hired persons, the incidences of direct requests are
estimated to be greater for males than for females, but these differences are not
Table 63 summarizes the results in regard to indirect requests. As the table
indicates, after controlling for gender, the frequency of indirect requests overall is
estimated to be 1.295 times (or 29.5% greater) for advanced learners than for
intermediate learners (p = .270). In all of the other interactions, except in the interaction
with professors, the frequencies of indirect requests are estimated to be greater for
advanced learners than for intermediate learners, but the differences are not statistically
significant.
After controlling for group, the frequency of indirect request overall is estimated
to be 1.3 times (or 30% greater) for females as compared to males (p = .175). In all of the
other interactions, except in the interaction with professors, the estimated frequencies of
indirect requests are greater for females than for males, but the differences are not
233
Table 63
Summary of Indirect Requests for Groups and Genders

RATIO for RATIO for
L2 Adv Female
Inter
Indirect Friends/ 1.769 0.1877 2.073 0.0526
request Same
Indirect Stranger/ 1.367 0.2498 0.9139 0.7268

request Same
Indirect Professor/ 0.9131 0.6449 1.141 0.4436

request Lower
Indirect Hired/ 1.348 0.4525 1.474 0.2805

request Higher
TOTAL ALL 1.295 0.2705 1.300 0.1749

Table 64 summarizes the results for the non-negotiable resolution for groups and
genders. After controlling for gender, overall, the frequency of the non-negotiable
resolution is estimated to be 0.858 times (or 14.18% lower) for advanced learners than for
intermediate learners (p = .772). In the interactions with friends and strangers, the
estimated frequencies are lower for advanced learners than for intermediate learners,
while in the interactions with hired persons, the frequency of the strategy is expected to
be greater for advanced learners than for intermediate learners. None of the differences
are statistically significant.
After controlling for group, the frequency of the non-negotiable resolution overall
is estimated to be 0.962 times (or 3.77% lower) for females as compared to males (p
=.946). As shown in the table, the interaction with strangers is the only one in which the
234
frequency of the strategy is expected to be greater for females than for males, but this
difference is not statistically significant (p = .691).
Table 64
Summary of Non-Negotiable Resolution for Groups and Genders

RATIO for RATIO for
L2 Adv Female
Inter
Non- Friends/ 0.9888 0.9891 0.6997 0.6528
negotiable Same
Non- Stranger/ 0.4001 0.1369 1.242 0.6907

negotiable Same
Non- Professor/ *47 * * *

negotiable Lower
Non- Hired/ 1.342 0.6483 0.9235 0.9113

negotiable Higher
TOTAL ALL 0.8582 0.7721 0.9623 0.9462

In sum, the results for the directness level in remedy do not show any statistically
significant differences either between advanced and intermediate learners or between
genders. Based on the results, overall, the advanced learners in the study were less direct
than intermediate learners: They were less likely to use direct requests and non-
negotiable resolution, and they were more likely to employ indirect requests than the
intermediate learners. However, the differences were not statistically significant, and no
further comparison with RSs was conducted. The results may indicate that in fact there
are no differences in directness level in remedy between advanced and intermediate
47
There were no responses with this strategy.
235
learners. Non-significant results may also be attributed to the small sample size, and it is
possible that a larger number of participants would generate significant differences. To
conclude, Hypothesis 3, according to which learners at the advanced level use more
nativelike structures than learners at the intermediate level in regard to directness level in
remedy, was consistent with the data collected but fell short of achieving statistical
significance.
4.6.5. Differences between intermediate and advanced learners based on the

number of words and moves.
4.6.5.1. The number of words.
Table 65 summarizes the main findings obtained for advanced and intermediate
learners as well as for genders with regard to the number of words. As shown in the table,
after controlling for gender, the predicted difference in the average number of words is
5.37 greater for advanced learners as compared to intermediate learners (p = .375). In
other interactions, the predicted values are as follows: With friends, the predicted
difference is 9.598 greater for advanced learners as compared to the intermediate group
(p = .375); with professors, the predicted difference is 5.15 greater for advanced learners
as compared to intermediate learners (p = .633); and with hired persons, the predicted
difference is 2.21 greater for advanced learners as compared to intermediate learners (p =
.842).
236
Table 65
Parameter Estimates for Words for Groups and Genders

Parameter P-VALUE Parameter P-VALUE
estimate estimate
Words f/s 9.598 0.3746 8.572 0.3239
Words s/s -2.726 0.6120 11.128 0.0523
Words p/l 5.158 0.6327 23.027 0.0525
Words h/h 2.218 0.8416 22.739 0.0570
Words ALL 5.378 0.5064 13.348 0.0861

The table shows that the interaction with strangers is the only one for which the predicted
difference in the average number of words is lower for the advanced group as compared
to the intermediate group (p = .612).
For genders, after controlling for group, the predicted difference in the average
number of words is 13.34 greater for females as compared to males (p = .086). In all of
the other interactions, the predicted values of the average number of words are greater for
females than for males (p > .05).
In addition, the predicted average number of words could be calculated because of
the use of linear models. The tables below summarize the calculated values of words for
groups, after controlling for gender. As Table 66 demonstrates, the predicted average
number of words for advanced learners is 61.93 and 56.55 for intermediate learners.
237
Table 66
Predicted Values of Words in all the Interactions
GROUP L2 Estimate Std Error z Value Pr > |z|

L2 Adv 61.9343 6.4597 9.59 <.0001
L2 Inter 56.5555 4.7485 11.91 <.0001
Table 67 shows that in the interactions with friends, the predicted average number of
words for advanced learners is 64.21 and 54.61 for intermediate learners.
Table 67
Predicted Values of Words in Interactions with Friends

L2 Adv 64.213 9.5782 6.7 <.0001
L2 Inter 54.6149 4.3469 12.56 <.0001
Table 68 indicates that in the interactions with strangers, the predicted average number of
Table 68
Predicted Values of Words in Interactions with Strangers

L2 Adv 41.2422 4.0463 10.19 <.0001
L2 Inter 43.9687 3.4389 12.79 <.0001
Table 69 shows that in the interactions with professors, the predicted average number of
238
Table 69
Predicted Values of Words in Interactions with Professors

L2 Adv 77.5615 7.59 10.22 <.0001
L2 Inter 72.4034 7.7286 9.37 <.0001
Finally, table 70 shows that in interactions with hired persons, the predicted average
number of words for advanced learners is 73.86 and 71.64 for intermediate learners.
Table 70
Predicted Values of Words in Interactions with Hired Persons

L2 Adv 73.8636 6.7739 10.9 <.0001
L2 Inter 71.6454 8.4836 8.45 <.0001
In sum, the results of the present study show that, overall and in each interaction,
the advanced learners in the study used slightly more words than intermediate learners.
These results also suggest that the learners in the study at both proficiency levels will use
the highest average number of words in their interactions with professors and the lowest
average number of words with strangers, which reinforces the findings obtained in the
qualitative analysis. The higher average number of words that the advanced learners in
this study employed has been attributed to their attempts to save their own face and the
hearers face in a complaint situation. Since the differences were not statistically
significant, no generalizations about the frequency of words between the two language
groups can be made.

239
4.6.5.2. The number of moves.
Table 71 summarizes the results obtained for the number of moves for groups and
genders when the parameters of social distance and social power were taken into
consideration. As the table shows, after having controlled for gender, on the whole, the
predicted difference in the average number of moves is 0.52 greater for advanced learners
as compared to intermediate learners (p = .458). In all of the other interactions, except for
those with strangers, the predicted difference in the average number of moves is greater
for advanced learners than for intermediate learners (p >.05).
After controlling for group, the predicted difference in the average number of
moves is 1.10 greater for females as compared to males (p =.067). In interactions with
strangers, the predicted difference in the average number of moves is 1.13 greater for
females as compared to males, and this difference is significant (p = .030). In interactions
with hired persons, the predicted difference is 1.74 greater for females as compared to
males, and this difference is also significant (p = .029).
Table 71
Parameter Estimates for Moves for Groups and Genders

Parameter P-VALUE Parameter P-VALUE
estimate estimate
Moves f/s 0.7969 0.4045 0.8700 0.2747
Moves s/s -0.4457 0.4338 1.1386 0.0303
Moves p/l 0.9871 0.2305 1.3595 0.0557
Moves h/h 0.8713 0.3559 1.7440 0.0288
Moves ALL 0.5245 0.4584 1.1008 0.0674

240
Table 72 summarizes the calculated values of moves for groups, after controlling for the
effect of gender. As the table shows, the predicted average number of moves is 6.47 for
advanced learners and 5.94 for intermediate learners.
Table 72
Predicted Values of Moves in All the Interactions

L2 Adv 6.474 0.5553 11.66 <.0001
L2 Inter 5.9495 0.336 17.71 <.0001
Table 73 shows that in the interactions with friends, the predicted average number of
moves is 6.97 for advanced learners and 6.18 for intermediate learners.
Table 73
Predicted Values of Moves in Interactions with Friends

L2 Adv 6.9783 0.7713 9.05 <.0001
L2 Inter 6.1814 0.4314 14.33 <.0001
Table 74 demonstrates that in the interactions with strangers, the predicted average
number of moves is 5.08 for advanced learners and 5.53 for intermediate learners.
Table 74
Predicted Values of Moves in Interactions with Strangers

L2 Adv 5.0882 0.4615 11.03 <.0001
L2 Inter 5.5339 0.2829 19.56 <.0001
Based on Table 75, in the interactions with professors, the predicted average number of
moves is 7.12 for advanced learners and 6.14 for intermediate learners.
241
Table 75
Predicted Values of Moves in Interactions with Professors

L2 Adv 7.1296 0.6327 11.27 <.0001
L2 Inter 6.1425 0.3995 15.38 <.0001
Finally, Table 76 shows that in the interactions with hired persons, the predicted average
number of moves is 7.12 for advanced learners and 6.25 for intermediate learners.
Table 76
Predicted Values of Moves in Interactions with Hired Persons

L2 Adv 7.1295 0.7129 10.00 <.0001
L2 Inter 6.2582 0.4739 13.21 <.0001
In sum, the advanced learners in the study used more moves than intermediate
learners, but the differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, the interaction
with strangers is the only one in which the average number of moves is predicted to be
lower for the advanced learners than for the intermediate learners in the study. Since one
move represents one semantic category, such as Opener, Justification of the Hearer, or
Apology, it becomes evident that the advanced learners used slightly more strategies than
intermediate learners in their complaints. This difference can reflect the involvement of
the advanced learners in face-saving strategies or the limited linguistic reservoir of
intermediate learners to express some of the semantic categories in the speech act set of
direct complaint. However, since the results were not statistically significant, no further
generalization about the number of moves between advanced and intermediate learners
can be made.
242
4.6.6. The frequency of upgraders and downgraders.
The last part of the analysis is based on the frequency of upgraders and
downgraders that the intermediate and advanced learners as well as each gender
employed. Table 77 summarizes the results for upgraders when the parameters of social
distance and social power were taken into consideration.
Table 77
Incidence Ratios of Upgraders for Groups and Genders

RATIO for RATIO for
L2 Adv Female
Inter
Upgraders Friends/ 0.7798 0.4491 1.356 0.2897
Same
Upgraders Stranger/ 1.0235 0.9420 1.997 0.0129

Same
Upgraders Professor/ 1.4443 0.5324 3.661 0.0457

Lower
Upgraders Hired/ 1.390 0.1064 1.628 0.0347

Higher
TOTAL ALL 1.0497 0.7820 1.6750 0.0097

After controlling for gender, the overall frequency of upgraders is estimated to be 1.049
times (or 4.97% greater) for advanced learners as compared to intermediate learners (p =
.782). In all of the other interactions, except for the interaction with friends, the estimated
frequencies of upgraders are greater for advanced learners than for intermediate learners,
but these differences are not statistically significant.

243
Moreover, after controlling for group, the overall frequency of upgraders is
estimated to be 1.675 times (or 67.5% greater) for females as compared to males, and this
difference is statistically significant (p = .010). In all of the other interactions, the
frequencies of upgraders are expected to be greater for females than for males, and these
differences are significant, except for the interaction with friends (p = .290).
In sum, in the present study, the overall frequency of upgraders was greater for
the advanced learners than for the intermediate learners. However, there was not enough
evidence to conclude that in the population there is statistically significant difference in
the use of upgraders between intermediate and advanced learners. The results also
indicate that in all of the interactions except for those with friends, females at both
proficiency levels are more likely to use upgraders than males are, which, in turn,
reinforces the findings obtained in the qualitative analysis (see Section 4.2.2.2.5.)
Table 78 summarizes the results of downgraders for groups and genders. After
controlling for gender, the overall frequency of downgraders is estimated to be 1.407
times (or 40.7% greater) for advanced learners as compared to intermediate learners (p =
.123). Moreover, in all of the other interactions, the estimated frequency of downgraders
is greater for advanced learners than for intermediate learners, but the differences are not
After controlling for group, the estimated frequency of downgraders is 1.092
times (or 9.23% greater) for females as compared to males. In all of the other
interactions, expect for those with strangers, the estimated frequency of downgraders is
greater for females than for males, but none of the differences are statistically significant.
244
Table 78
Summary of Downgraders for Groups and Genders

RATIO for RATIO for
L2 Adv Female
Inter
Downgraders Friends/ 1.1307 0.6794 1.2246 0.4999
Same
Downgraders Stranger/ 1.3451 0.4960 0.6097 0.3525

Same
Downgraders Professor/ 1.1534 0.7381 1.3462 0.4510

Lower
Downgraders Hired/ 2.381 0.1035 1.1078 0.8135

Higher
TOTAL ALL 1.4074 0.1230 1.0923 0.7040

In sum, the overall frequencies of upgraders and downgraders were greater for the
advanced learners than for the intermediate learners in this study. However, there was not
enough evidence to conclude that there is a significant difference between the
intermediate and advanced learners in the population in their use of these strategies. With
regard to gender, overall and in the interactions with strangers and hired persons, females
at both proficiency levels are more likely to use upgraders than males, and these
differences are significant. Furthermore, overall and in the interactions with friends,
professors, and hired persons, the female learners in this study were more likely to use
downgraders than male learners, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Thus, no generalizations about the use of downgraders by gender among the learners can
be made.
245
4.7. Interlanguage Features of Complaints. Summary of the Main Findings with

Reference to the Hypotheses
This section summarizes the main findings obtained in the statistical analyses
with reference to the hypotheses that were set up to ascertain similarities and differences
between L2 learners and RSs. The table below recapitulates the hypotheses and the
results obtained in the statistical analyses.
Table 79
Hypotheses and the Results Obtained in the Statistical Analyses
Hypothesis Assumptions Results obtained in statistical

analyses
Hypothesis 1: The a) Learners will use more a) Learners are more likely to
differences between the off-record and fewer on- use off-record strategies than
learners and native record strategies than RSs (p = .003). Moreover,
speakers complaints will RSs. learners in the study were less
be expressed in the likely to use on-record
learners longer utterances, strategies than RSs, but this
a larger number of moves, difference was not statistically
and less severe (less direct) significant (p = .038).
utterances than those of
RSs. b) Learners will use b) Contrary to the researchers
fewer direct requests and expectations, learners are more
Hypothesis 1 was partially more indirect requests likely to use direct requests (p
confirmed. than RSs. = .038) than RSs. Moreover,
learners are more likely to use
indirect requests (p = .041).
c) Learners are more likely to

c) L2 learners will use use downgraders than RSs (p
more downgraders and = .001). The findings also
fewer upgraders than show significant differences
RSs. for the interaction between
group and gender for
upgraders, which means that
the odds ratios for upgraders
are different for males and
females across groups and
within each group.
d) L2 learners will use
246
more words and moves d) On average, learners use

than RSs. twice as many words as RSs
(p < .001).
Hypothesis 2: Male L2 a) Male learners will use a) The differences in the odds
learners will complain by more on-record and fewer of on- and off-record strategies
using more direct strategies off-record strategies in for males and females were
in Russian than female L2 Russian than female similar across groups and
learners. The same patterns learners. within each group. Contrary to
will be observed in the RSs the researchers expectations,
data (Russian males will be the males in the study were
more direct than Russian more likely to use off-record
females). strategies than the females, but
the difference was not
Hypothesis 2 was partially statistically significant (p =
confirmed. .038). Similarly, the males in
the study were more likely to
use on-record strategies than
the females, but the difference
was not statistically significant
b) Male learners will (p = .890).
employ more direct
request strategies and b) The females in the study
fewer indirect request were more likely to use direct
strategies than female requests than the males in the
learners. study, but the difference was
not statistically significant (p
= .64). Similarly, the females
in the study were more likely
to employ indirect requests
than the males, but the
difference was also not
c) Male learners will use statistically significant (p =
fewer downgraders and .062).
more upgraders than c) The results do not show any
female learners. statistical differences in
incidence ratios for
downgraders between males
and females. The results also
show that the patterns of the
frequency of upgraders
observed between males and
d) Male learners will use females in the population
fewer words and moves within the learners group
than female learners. differ from those in the RSs
247
group.
d) Male learners use fewer

words and moves than female
learners, and the same patterns
are observed cross-culturally.
Hypothesis 3: American L2 This hypothesis is based The advanced learners in the
learners at the advanced on the off- and on- study differed from the
proficiency level will use record strategies, intermediate learners in the
more nativelike structures directness level in strategy selection in
than learners at the request, the frequency of complaints, directness level
intermediate level. downgraders and in remedy, the number of
upgraders, and the words and moves, and the
Hypothesis 3 was not number of words and frequency of mitigating and
proven. moves in the learners intensifying strategies.
group for both However, the differences did
proficiency levels, as not rise to the level of
compared to RSs statistical significance. Thus,
the two groups were not
compared to the group of
RSs.
Hypothesis 4: The Hypothesis 4 will be Learners strategy selection
differences between the answered based on the shows the influence of transfer
learners and native results of the qualitative from their L1.
speakers complaints will and quantitative analyses
result from the learners that will be conducted in Learners indirectness in their
pragmatic transfer at the the cross-cultural and interactions with friends about
sociopragmatic and interlanguage money more closely
pragmalinguistic levels. investigations. approximates RSs norms than
American norms, which may
indicate learners acculturation
process.
Learners are more likely to use
indirect requests in proposing
a solution to a problem than
RSs. The frequency of indirect
requests was ascribed to
learners transfer from their L1
at the pragmalinguistic level.
The number of words and
moves that the learners use
indicate their transfer from
their L1.
248
The findings show significant differences between L2 learners and RSs in their
expressions of complaints, which partially confirm Hypothesis 1. In regard to off-record
strategies, overall, the frequencies of off-record strategies are greater for L2 learners than
for RSs (p = .003), and this finding confirms the hypothesis. The results also indicate that
the frequencies of off-record strategies are greater for L2 learners than for RSs in their
interactions with professors (p = .004) and strangers (p = .022), and the differences were
significant. Thus, overall and toward professors and strangers, American L2 learners are
less direct in expressing complaints than Russian native speakers.
With regard to the use of on-record strategies, the frequencies of these strategies
were lower for the L2 learners than RSs both overall and in each interaction. It appears
that the L2 learners avoided a direct confrontation with the wrongdoer about the
wrongdoing, while RSs preferred directly addressing the wrongdoer about the problem.
However, the differences were not statistically significant (p = .379). Therefore, no
generalizations about the population can be made in regard the use of on-record strategies
by L2 learners and RSs. These results failed to confirm Hypothesis 1 concerning the use
of on-record strategies.
Furthermore, an analysis of the subcategories of the on-record strategies provided
important findings in regard to learners L1 transfer. Based on the results, there is a
significant difference in the odds of speaker-oriented strategies between L2 learners and
RSs in the population (p = .004), which indicates that L2 learners are more likely to use
speaker-oriented strategies than RSs. This difference was ascribed to learners transfer
from their L1 at the pragmalinguistic level.

249
For genders, the results obtained for off- and on-record strategies were not
statistically significant. The differences in the odds of off- and on-record strategies for
males and females were similar across groups and within each group. Contrary to the
researchers expectations, the odds of an off-record strategy were greater for the males
than for the females in the study, but the difference was not statistically significant (p =
.384). Similarly, the odds of an on-record strategy were greater for the males than for the
females, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = .890). Thus, there was
not enough evidence to make generalizations about males and females use of off- and
on-record strategies in the population. In this regard, Hypothesis 2 was not proven.
In the context of proposing a solution to the problem, statistical analyses have
been conducted to assess directness level in request strategies for groups and genders.
The main findings indicate that the frequencies of direct and indirect requests are greater
for L2 learners than for RSs, and the differences are statistically significant (p = .038, p =
.041). These results partially confirmed Hypothesis 1 since L2 learners are more likely to
use direct requests than RSs, contrary to the researchers expectations, and they are more
likely to use indirect request than RSs, which was assumed. The frequency of indirect
requests was ascribed to learners transfer from their L1 at the pragmalinguistic level.
With regard to gender, the frequencies of direct requests were greater for the females than
for the males in the study (p = .640), and the frequencies of indirect requests were also
greater for the females than for the males (p = .062), but the results were not statistically
significant. Therefore, with regard to the directness level in requests between males and
females, Hypothesis 2 could not be confirmed.

250
The present study also investigated subcategories of indirect requests. Based on
descriptive statistics, L2 learners greatly differ from RSs in their choices of indirect
request strategies. The analysis showed that L2 learners did not use hearer-oriented
strategies with the negated particle and the modal verb in the past tense at all. However,
they more frequently used this strategy in the present tense, which the RSs rarely used.
The lack of the request strategy in the past tense in the learners group suggests an area
for instructional intervention since some scholars have established this strategy as the
most conventionalized request strategy in Russian (e.g., Mills, 1992).
Significant differences between L2 learners and RSs were established based on
the number of words and moves, which indicate that, on average, L2 learners use twice as
many words as RSs (p < .001). This result confirms Hypothesis 1, according to which L2
learners use more words and moves than Russian native speakers. When the parameters
of social distance and social power were considered, the predicted average of words and
moves for learners is larger than it is for RSs for all interactions (i.e., with friends,
strangers, professors and hired persons), which reinforces Hypothesis 1.
The results also confirm Hypothesis 2, according to which male learners use
fewer words than female learners, and the same patterns are observed cross-culturally.
The main findings also indicate that, on average, speakers in both groups use more words
with friends than with strangers, which confirms Wolfsons Bulge Theory. However,
the results also show that L2 and RSs negotiated more with status unequals than with
friends, which contradicts Wolfsons theory that hypothesized that interlocutors whose
relationships are fixed, like in the case of status unequals, negotiate less than status-
equals, whose relationships are less fixed (Wolfson, 1988).

251
Furthermore, the differences between groups and genders were analyzed based on
the frequency of upgraders and downgraders. The findings show significant differences
for the interaction between group and gender for upgraders, which means that the odds
ratios for upgraders are different for males and females across groups and within each
group. The results obtained in all of the combinations for the main effects partially
confirm Hypothesis 2, according to which male learners use more upgraders than female
learners. However, they do not confirm the part of the hypothesis that Russian males use
more upgraders than Russian females. To conclude, the patterns of the frequency of
upgraders observed between males and females in the population within the learners
group differ from those in the RSs group.
With regard to downgraders, the results confirm Hypothesis 1, according to which
L2 learners use more downgraders than Russian speakers (p = .001). L2 learners are also
more likely to use downgraders in their interactions with professors (p = .006) and friends
(p = .005) than Russian native speakers. These results open an important area for
instructional intervention because L2 learners behavior regarding their use of
downgraders with friends is unusual for Russian culture, in which straightforwardness is
expected in interactions among peers. Moreover, for genders, the results do not indicate
any statistical differences in incidence ratios for downgraders between males and
females. For that reason, Hypothesis 2 about the differences in the frequency of
downgraders for genders could not be confirmed.
The last part of this section summarizes the results obtained for Hypothesis 3,
which theorizes that learners at the advanced level use more nativelike structures than
learners at the intermediate level. The analysis showed that the advanced learners in the
252
study were less direct in expressing their complaints than intermediate learners, but the
differences were not statistically significant. Due to a lack of statistically significant
differences, no further comparisons with RSs have been conducted. Similarly, no
significant results were obtained for the directness level in remedy between the
intermediate and advanced learners. Although the advanced learners in the study were
overall more indirect in proposing a solution to a problem than intermediate learners, the
differences were not statistically significant. Thus, it could not be proven that learners at
the advanced level approach nativelike structures since no statistically significant
differences among learners have been identified. It has to be kept in mind that the results
may indicate that in fact there are no differences between intermediate and advanced
learners in directness level, or it is possible that a small number of participants resulted in
a lack of significant results.
Important differences between the intermediate and advanced learners were
obtained based on the number of words and moves. The results showed that the advanced
learners overall used slightly more words and moves than intermediate learners in the
study, which was ascribed to their involvement in face-saving strategies. A greater
number of moves among the advanced learners also indicated that they used more
strategies in their complaints than the intermediate learners. Moreover, the results
indicate that the learners at both proficiency levels in the study will use the highest
average number of words and moves in their interactions with professors and the lowest
average with strangers. This finding, in turn, confirms the results of the qualitative
analysis regarding the linguistic behavior of the learners with authority figures and
strangers in public. However, since the results were not statistically significant, no
253
generalizations about the number of words and moves between intermediate and
advanced learners can be made.
With regard to downgraders and upgraders, the advanced learners in the study
overall were more likely to use the mitigating and intensifying strategies than the
intermediate learners, but the results were not statistically significant. Thus, no
generalizations about the use of downgraders and upgraders by learners at the
intermediate and advanced levels can be drawn. However, significant results have been
obtained for males and females in their use of upgraders, which indicate that female
learners at both proficiency levels overall are more likely to use upgraders than males.
This finding supports the results of the qualitative analysis that showed females in the
learners group were more confrontational than males in some situations (see Section
4.2.2.1.)
254
Chapter 5. Conclusions
This chapter summarizes the main findings of the present study obtained in cross-
cultural and interlanguage investigations. The chapter will open with a presentation of
major differences related to the prototypical taxonomy of the speech act set of DCs of
ASs and RSs, as well as linguistic realization of politeness by speakers in all language
groups. Then, the chapter will report on the effects of gender and language proficiency on
performance of complaints. The main difference between native and non-native
performances of complaints will be recapitulated with focus on the learners transfer from
L1 at the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels. Next, the chapter will discuss
instructional intervention in teaching pragmatics to FL/L2 learners, and then it will
proceed with some pedagogical implications. Suggestions for future research will close
the chapter.
5.2. The Taxonomy of Speech Act Set of Direct Complaints of ASs and RSs. L2
Learners Transfer of Structural Patterns of Complaints
The results obtained in the qualitative and quantitative analyses show major
differences between ASs and RSs in the complexity of the speech act of DCs, which
greatly affected the strategy selection and linguistic choices of L2 learners and revealed
salient language- and culture-specific features of complaints. The findings demonstrate
that ASs mostly differed from RSs in their frequency of utilization of the semantic
categories of Gratitude, Apology, Justification of the Hearer, Justification of the Speaker,
Conciliation, and Closing.

255
In this regard, L2 learners transferred some strategies from their L1 while
structuring their complaints in the target language. In particular, their use of Conciliation,
Gratitude, Justification of the Hearer, and Justification of the Speaker was more
consistent with the behavior of ASsand not of RSswhich was ascribed to learners
transfer of pragmalinguistic norms from their L1. L2 learners often justified the hearers
wrongdoing by both excusing their behavior and showing understanding to what has
happened, which rarely occurred in the Russian data. Since the hearers justification was
often present in the ASs data, the strategy selection was ascribed to learners transfer of
the sociopragmatic norms from their L1.
Furthermore, the L2 learners tried to restore the harmony with the hearer after
they expressed their dissatisfaction, and such behavior was rarely present in the Russian
data. Overall, the L2 learners were less apologetic than ASs, but they often apologized to
the hearer before stating their complaint, which, in turn, was a common feature of the
ASs complaint, and rarely occurred in the Russian data. In this regard, learners behavior
was attributed to their L1 transfer at the pragmalinguistic level. Moreover, learners often
expressed their gratitude toward the hearer whose behavior caused their frustration. A
manifestation of gratitude was absent in the Russian data, but it frequently occurred in the
ASs data, which indicates learners transfer from their L1.
Although L2 learners overall more closely approximated the strategy selection of
ASs, the analysis of each experimental situation has demonstrated that L2 learners also
used semantic strategies that were closer to the behavior of RSs than ASs. This finding
may indicate that in their strategy selection L2 learners are transitioning from their L1
256
norms to L2 norms, which could have been triggered by their everyday-life interactions
with native speakers.
To conclude, in their complaints, ASs and L2 learners employed face-saving
strategies to mitigate the imposition upon the hearers private space, which reveals
linguistic politeness in American culture. In this regard, overall, RSs were less concerned
with face-saving strategies in a complaint situation, which, in turn, reflects sociocultural
norms in Russian culture. In sum, this study demonstrated that although the speech act set
of direct complaints can be perceived as universal because the speakers express their
dissatisfaction about the wrongdoer or the wrongdoing in a complaint, its realization is
language- and culture-specific.
5.3. Gender Differences within Culture and across Cultures. Gender Differences in
the Learners Group
The cross-cultural analysis showed important differences between genders within
culture and across cultures. In the Russian data, the major finding was that Russian males
were more judgmental and direct in their complaints, but they were also more humorous
and ironic than Russian females, due to their use of diminutives and a variety of address
forms, which, in turn, downgraded or intensified the offense. Unlike females, males used
brief complaints, and they rarely provided details in their complaints; however, both
genders in Russian culture used emotionally loaded vocabulary in their complaints.
Fewer differences were observed between genders in America culture. The major
difference was that American males used a larger variety of address forms than females,
which served to create solidarity with the hearer. Moreover, in some interactions,
particularly with the taxi driver, males were more confrontational than females because
257
they employed more expletives and euphemisms. However, the analysis revealed more
similarities between genders in American culture than in Russian culture: Both genders in
American culture justified their reactions, used apologies, and often excused the hearers
behavior. Moreover, they almost never incorporated humor in their complaints.
The qualitative analysis also indicated some gender differences among learners.
On the whole, in their complaints, female learners more overtly showed their
dissatisfaction than male learners. Moreover, in interactions with male strangers, female
learners were more threatening and argumentative than male learners and American
speakers. Their confrontational behavior, in turn, may be associated with both the gender
of the interlocutor (male) and their attempts to protect themselves in the target speakers
community.
5.4. Russian Native- and Non-Native Performance of Complaints
The results obtained in the interlanguage investigation indicate that learners
complaints significantly differed from those of RSs at the strategic, linguistic, and
discourse levels. The major differences between L2 learners and RSs lie in: a) the
taxonomy of direct complaints, as summarized in the section above; b) the linguistic
realization of politeness in the complaint itself and in requests strategies; c) the quantity
of words and moves; and d) the frequency of downgraders and upgraders.
5.4.1. Main differences between L2 learners and RSs at the linguistic,

strategic and discourse levels.
Significant differences between both groups arose in the degree of directness in
the complaint itself and in request strategies. In their realization of complaints, overall,
L2 learners were less direct than RSs. L2 learners adhered to off-record strategies to
258
avoid direct confrontation with the hearer, while RSs preferred directly addressing the
hearer about the wrongdoing (p = .003). Moreover, learners refrained from directly
confronting both professors at a university and strangers in public, and they were more
likely to use off-record strategies in such interactions than RSs (p = .004, p = .022). As
the quantitative and qualitative analyses showed, learners reactions in public greatly
differed from the linguistic behavior of RSs, which signals potential difficulties for L2
learners and opens an area for pedagogical intervention.
Furthermore, the L2 learners in the study were less likely to use on-record
strategies than RSs, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = .379).
However, an analysis of the subcategories of on-record strategies showed a significant
difference between L2 learners and RSs in their use of speaker-oriented strategies (p =
.004), which was attributed to learners L1 transfer of pragmalinguistic norms. RSs, in
turn, preferred hearer-oriented strategies to express their complaints.
To propose a solution to a complaint, L2 learners adhered to direct and indirect
requests, and, contrary to expectations, they were more likely to employ both request
strategies than RSs (p = .038, p = .041). A greater incidence ratio of indirect requests for
the L2 learners than for native speakers was attributed to learners L1 transfer at the
pragmalinguistic level. Moreover, important results were obtained in the analysis of the
subcategories of indirect requests that indicate that learners did not make any use of
hearer-oriented strategies with the modal verb in the past tense and the negated
particle , which was the most frequent category in the Russian data. On average,
learners also more frequently used hearer-oriented strategies in the present tense, which
259
RSs rarely used. It is apparent that L2 learners would greatly benefit from instructions
regarding indirect request strategies.
Moreover, in the Russian data, the mean values did not show any differences in
the frequency among Russian speakers of direct and indirect requests (M = 0.41, and M =
0.40, respectively). For that reason, the present study does not provide any decisive
findings for the debate among scholars about whether Russian speakers prefer directness
or indirectness in requests (see Chapter 2 about the discussion, e.g., Mills, 1992; Owen,
2001).
The results also indicate that L2 learners differed from RSs in their assessment of
social distance and social power. Learners strategy selection demonstrated that they have
difficulties adjusting their strategies to the parameters of social distance and social power.
They oversupplied apologies and justification of the hearer to strangers, which could lead
to their pragmatic failure in public. They manifested gratitude in interactions with friends,
which could create some awkwardness with Russian native speakers in informal
situations. Learners were also more likely to use downgraders with friends than RSs (p =
.005), which is unusual among peers in Russian culture. Moreover, L2 learners
experienced difficulties choosing a proper strategy while negotiating with professors,
which resulted in their excessive verbosity (see a detailed analysis in the section below).
The data indicate that learners had difficulties not only at the strategic, but also at
the linguistic level. Overall, L2 learners were less direct toward friends than RSs: On
average, they used more off-record strategies toward friends than native speakers (M =
0.17 vs. M = 0.08) and more indirect requests than RSs (M = 0.28 vs. M = 0.08).
However, the L2 learners, most of whom were at the intermediate level, were inconsistent
260
in their use of informal address forms toward friends and formal address forms toward
strangers, which resulted in their inappropriate linguistic behavior at the sociopragmatic
level. To conclude, learners behaviors toward friends and strangers greatly differ from
those of native speakers who favor directness and straightforwardness in such
interactions.
Furthermore, the data revealed learners difficulties at the linguistic level in their
interactions with status-unequals: They lacked control over linguistic devices to minimize
or intensify their complaints in interactions with professors and hired persons. Although
L2 learners were overall less direct in stating their problem toward a professor than RSs
(p = .004), some learners, most of whom were at the intermediate level, were too direct
and critical toward a professor, which could prevent them from successful negotiations in
an academic setting in Russian culture. In these interactions, learners inappropriate
linguistic behavior often resulted from their inconsistency in use of formal address forms.
Learners communications with hired persons also indicated their uncertainty about the
use of proper address forms as well as adequate strategies to negotiate a problem with the
hearer of a lower social status. This finding may also explain the high average number of
intensifiers that L2 learners used in their interactions with hired persons (M = 0.86).
Furthermore, overall, there was a significant difference between L2 learners and
RSs in their assessment of severity of offense (p < .001), which means that L2 learners
perceived the degree of severity of offense differently than RSs. As the qualitative
analysis demonstrated, the differences in the perception of severity of offense between
the groups have their roots in cultural values and social norms, which affect the speakers
attitudes toward friendship and money, as well as their expectations toward hired persons.
261
In sum, differences in linguistic politeness between the L2 learners and RSs in
their interactions with strangers, friends, and status-unequals indicate possible difficulties
for L2 learners at pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels, which should be addressed
by language instructors. It appears that L2 learners need to improve their understanding
of pragmatic functions of linguistic norms and sociocultural values so that they can
effectively negotiate a problem in the target language.
5.4.2. Differences between groups based on the number of words and moves.
Striking differences between L2 learners and RSs arose from the number of words
and moves they used. Learners complaints were significantly longer in terms of words
and moves than those of RSs (p < .001), particularly in their interactions with professors.
Unlike other studies that attributed learners wordiness to their linguistic shortcomings
(Kraft & Geluykens, 2002) and pragmatic competence (Shardakova, 2009, p. 52), the
present study to some degree attributes the learners verbosity to their linguistic
limitations. However, this study more primarily attributes learners verbosity to their
transfer of L1 norms, which reflected their relatively heavy emphasis on face-saving
strategies.
The results obtained in the analysis of the effect of proficiency level on
complaints reinforce this conclusion since they showed that advanced learners used
slightly more words and moves than intermediate learners. Moreover, the findings show
that the L2 learners approximated ASs in their length of complaints as expressed in the
number of words and moves that the speakers employed to save their own face and the
hearers face. Although the statistical analyses did not include ASs, even a rough
262
comparison of the number of words and moves shows that, on average, ASs used the
highest number of words and moves, while RSs used the lowest number of words and
moves. The results indicate that, unlike ASs, RSs were less concerned with face-saving
strategies and did not try to minimize the imposition upon the hearer; rather, RSs
preferred straightforwardness and openness toward the interlocutor in their complaints.
In sum, learners excessive verbosity was ascribed to some degree to their
uncertainty about how to successfully negotiate a problem at the strategic and linguistic
levels, but primarily this verbosity can be attributed to their attempts to save their own
face and the hearers face in a complaint situation.
5.4.3. Effect of gender on complaints.
The results obtained in the statistical analyses did not show any statistically
significant differences between genders at the strategic level (in their expressions of
complaint) and at the linguistic level (in the directness level in request strategies), but
they showed statistically significant differences between males and females at the
discourse level (in their use of upgraders), and in the number of words and moves.
Although the male learners in the study were more likely to use off- and on-
record strategies in their expression of complaints than the female learners, these
differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, in proposing a solution to a
problem, the males in the study were less likely to use direct and indirect requests than
the females, but, again, the differences were not statistically significant. In regard to
severity of offense, overall, independent of the off- and on-record strategies, there was
not a significant difference in the perception of severity of offense between males and
females (p = .161).
263
However, significant differences between genders have been established based on
the number of words, the number of moves, and the frequency of upgraders. As
hypothesized, overall, males within each group and across groups used fewer words and
moves than females on average, and these differences were statistically significant.
Furthermore, the results pointed to significant differences between genders within group
and across groups in their use of upgraders. The incidence ratios showed that male
learners were less likely to use upgraders than Russian males, while female learners were
more likely to use upgraders than Russian females. The within-group analysis showed
that male learners were more likely to use upgraders than female learners, while Russian
females were more likely to use upgraders than Russian males. With regard to
downgraders, overall, the females in the study were less likely to use downgraders than
the males, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = .884).
5.4.4. Effect of proficiency level on complaints.
The results showed that the advanced learners in the study were less direct in
stating their complaints and less direct in proposing a solution to the problem than the
intermediate learners were, but the differences were not statistically significant. A lack of
statistically significant differences may indicate that there are in fact no differences
between intermediate and advanced learners in directness level in complaints and request
strategies. However, non-significant differences in the present study may be related to the
small number of participants, and it is possible that a larger number of responses would
provide statistically significant differences between the learners at the intermediate and
advanced levels.
264
Important differences between both groups of L2 learners were obtained in regard
to the number of words, the number of moves, and the frequency of downgraders and
upgraders. The analysis indicates that, overall, the advanced learners in the study used
slightly more words and moves than intermediate learners, but the results were not
statistically significant. The differences in the number of words and moves between the
two learner groups were attributed to a greater involvement of the advanced learners in
face-saving strategies. Furthermore, the data showed greater frequencies of downgraders
and upgraders in the advanced group than in the intermediate group, but, again, these
differences were not statistically significant.
To conclude, further interlanguage study is needed with a larger number of
participants at both proficiency levels to assess differences between both groups in regard
to linguistic politeness in direct complaints, to the frequency of words and moves, and to
the use of mitigating and intensifying strategies.
5.5. Pedagogical Implications
5.5.1. Teaching pragmatics. Curriculum design.
The present study has demonstrated learners difficulties with adjusting their
responses to the parameters of social distance and social power in Russian culture. This
finding reflects the unique demands of study abroad which places L2 learners, usually for
the first time, in a real-life situation in which they must interpret and produce speech acts.
They must effectively structure them in terms of social hierarchies they do not fully
understand because they differ from the sociocultural norms that they know from their L1
(compare Kinginger, 2011). Although there is no consensus among scholars about
teaching pragmatics (see more in Kasper & Rose, 2002, pp. 255-273), the results of this
265
study have demonstrated that natural acquisition of pragmatics needs to be enhanced by
classroom instructions since learners do not always detect pragmatic functions of the
target language in its natural environment. This finding comes along with results of other
studies in which pragmatic functions of the second/foreign language remained unnoticed
by learners in the native speakers community because, according to some scholars, they
are often not salient to learners in the natural language environment (e.g., Schmidt, 1993;
Shardakova, 2009). The present study suggests that instructors should include
pragmatics in their curricula to improve learners pragmatic competence at the
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels. Pragmatic functions should be targeted in
classroom activities, which will help learners to successfully negotiate a problem with
Russian native speakers, as well as to better prepare them for daily encounters during
their study abroad program.
5.5.2. Suggestions for classroom intervention.
Learners difficulties related to strategy selection and linguistic choices in
various sociocultural contexts provide areas for classroom intervention so that learners
improve their pragmatic competence. In classroom activities, instructors can introduce
learners to situations similar to those used in the present study, in which Russian speakers
of different social status and social distance interact with each other in various
sociocultural contexts. Instructors can provide situations related to everyday life in which
interlocutors of different ages and genders (e.g., an interaction with a younger or an older
woman/man on the street), of different social distance (e.g., friends or strangers), and
status-unequal (e.g., an interaction between students and professors, an interaction with a

266
person whom the speaker hired) negotiate a problem. While analyzing such situations,
learners should be made aware of sociocultural norms reflected in language use.
Learners also need to practice linguistic devices that Russian interlocutors employ
in their negotiations so that they better understand the impact of social status and social
distance on interactions in Russian culture, for example, the distribution of formal and
informal pronouns, first names in diminutive forms, and a range of address terms that can
be used in interactions with friends, strangers, and people of higher or lower status.
To assess learners pragmatic competence at the sociopragmatic and
pragmalinguistic levels, the instructor can present situations to learners and ask them to
assess the appropriateness of the speakers reactions, such as in the following situation:
Situation 1.
, . ,
. :
[Your Russian professor agreed to meet you before class to discuss your essay.
You waited for him, but he did not come. You approach him after class and say:]
a) ! ? [Hi! Why you didnt come to the
meeting?]
b) ! ? [Nikolaj
Borisovich! Why you didnt come to the meeting?]
c) ! ? [Professor,
can I meet with you tomorrow at 4:00PM?]
d) ! , . [Well
respected Nikolaj Borisovich! I was waiting for you, but you didnt come.]
267
e) , .
? [Excuse me, Nikolaj Borisovich, but you
werent (there) today. Is it possible to meet with you another time?]
Learners can present their evaluations to the group and explain their decisions. The
instructor can broaden the learners discussion by focusing on sociocultural conventions
in both cultures. The instructor should draw learners attention to sociocultural norms in
Russian culture, according to which it is inappropriate for students to use informal
address forms with a professor, to question him about his absence, and to suggest a
certain time for another meeting; the latter would be proposed by the professor, and not
by the student. The learners even at the intermediate level have to be reminded of formal
relationships between students and professors in Russian culture, which require the use of
the first name and the patronymic to address the professor so that they better understand
how to negotiate with authority figures. The discussion should also expand on
interactions with a secretary, a police officer, a doctor, and other people of higher social
status, as well as on interactions with people of lower status than the speaker, for
example, a hired student, so that learners understand how social power affects social
interactions in Russian culture. Moreover, instructors need to address the use of the
particle since the learners tend to overuse it while often not being aware of its
undesired negative impact, as in the situation above.
Furthermore, instructors need to provide ample examples in which friends interact
with each other when various degrees of severity of offense are involved, because, as the
data have demonstrated, learners at the intermediate and even advanced level were not
consistent in their use of informal address forms while interacting with friends. The
268
instructors need to draw learners attention to positive politeness strategies that Russian
speakers use to create in-group solidarity through the use of address forms and
diminutives, which can be demonstrated in the following situation:
Situation 2. .
. .
. , :
[The end of the semester approaches. You are working with your friend Ivan on a
project in literature. He has been late for every meeting with you. Today, you
have been waiting for him for already thirty minutes. When he comes, you say to
him:]
a) ! ?
! [Vania! Why are you late all the time? Lets discuss it quickly (dim.)]
b) ! . . ,
, ! [Vania! (voc.) I cant wait for you all the time. Here is
your part of the project. Do this please for tomorrow.]
c) ! ,
. [Vania! (dim.) If you cannot come on time,
we need to discuss this project by email.]
d) ! ? [Buddy! Cant you come on
time?]
269
e) ! ,
. [Dear! Couldnt you come on time next time
because Im fed up with waiting for you every time?]
Instructors should make learners aware of the increasing use of the vocative forms of first
names among friends and family members in Russian culture. They should also draw
learners attention to the linguistic realization of requests, particularly to the use of
imperatives in Russian, ask the learners to compare them to English norms, and, then,
expand the discussion to rules of politeness in both cultures. The discussion should also
include the structure with the verb , can, in the present tense, with the negative
particle for intermediate learners, and the verb in the past tense with negated particle
and the conditional for advanced learners. In particular, advanced learners should
practice the construction with the past tense since, as the present study has confirmed,
this structure is the most conventionalized request form of Russian speakers (Mills,
1992), but it was hardly ever used by advanced learners. Moreover, learners at both levels
need to practice the expression of possibility with the impersonal , it is possible,
and compare it to the request form with the conjugated verb since the present study
demonstrated learners lack of control over both strategies. Learners can analyze these
structures in situation such as the following:
Situation 4. , ,
. :
270
[You hired Sasha, another student, to help you with mathematics, but he covers
the material too fast. Today, you again did not understand his explanations. You
say to him:]
a) ! ? [Sasha! It is possible (to go)
slower next time?]
b) ! ? [Sasha! (voc.)
Can you explain more slowly next time?]
c) ! ? [
Listen! Cant you explain more slowly next time?]
d) ! ? [Listen!
Couldnt you explain more slowly next time?]
Moreover, the use of conditional sentences with the conjunction if should be explicitly
explained to learners since, as the present study demonstrated, Russians speakers use
brief statements and rarely use complex conditional structures in spoken Russian, while
learners at both proficiency levels tend to oversupply their solutions to the problem with
if-sentences (compare Shardakova, 2009, p. 82).
Furthermore, instructors should draw learners attention to linguistic devices and
sociocultural norms underlying interactions with strangers. These instructions should
vary according to the hearers age and gender so that learners better understand how to
address a male or female person on the street who is older or younger than the speaker.
The instructors can provide the following situation to the learners and ask them to
evaluate the appropriateness of the speakers reactions:

271
Situation 5. -
. :
[A woman bumped into you on the street and spilled coffee on your shirt. You say
to her:]
a) ! ! [Miss! What are you doing?/informal]
b) ! ! [Young lady! What are you
doing?/formal]
c) ! ! [Maam! What have you done!]
d) ! ! [Oh! What a nightmare!]
Instructors need to draw learners attention to the speakers linguistic reservoir in this
situation, particularly to the use of the formal personal pronouns and address forms,
which can be employed in interactions with strangers. Intermediate learners need to be
reminded that the expression, , young girl, is incorrect in Russian.
Moreover, the gender distribution of the interjection in Russian has to be taught to the
learners because they tend to overuse it; they are not aware that the interjection is used
predominantly by Russian females to express emotions. In the present study, male
learners employed in their interactions with other males, which, as Shardakova (2009)
pointed out, creates comic effect (p. 118).
Learners need to practice how and when to express gratitude to interlocutors of
different social power and distance, which should be contrasted with English
sociocultural contexts. Learners at different proficiency levels should learn how to
intensify gratitude in Russian and compare it to English norms. The present study
demonstrated that learners at both proficiency levels, but particularly at the intermediate
272
level, tried to translate common English expressions of gratitude into Russian, for
example, I would appreciate very much if you could do this for me, It would be great if
you could do this for me, which generated difficulties with morphosyntax, particularly
with conditional if-sentences. In the classroom, the instructors can present some
expressions of gratitude to learners and ask them in which sociocultural contexts they
would use them. For example, the following expressions can be presented to the learners:
. [Thank you.] . [Thank you very much.]
. [Thank you very much.]
/ . [I will be very obligated
(mas./fem) to you.]
/ . [I am very grateful (mas./fem.) to you.]
Furthermore, instructors should introduce learners to lexical devices such as
diminutive forms and disparaging forms that serve to minimize or intensify the offense.
Learners at both proficiency levels need to better understand the use of diminutives,
particularly the use of the endearing diminutives of nouns, adjectives, and adverbs.
Learners need to know that these forms can reduce the offense and can soften their
expression of dissatisfaction. L2 learners also should to be made aware of the existence
of disparaging forms; the learners at the advanced proficiency level in particular should
be made aware of how these forms function in social interactions in the target language
community. The following examples can be presented to the learners:
1. ! ? [Tania! (dim.) When will you return
the book (dim.)?]

273
2. ! . [Buddy! Its time to wash the glasses
(dim.)]
3. ! , , . .
[Katie! (dim.) Give me please the money (dim.) back! I need it very much.]
3. ! [Lets hurry a bit! (dim.)]
4. ! ! . [Well Sasha! How is it
possible? You are late all the time.]
The instructor can also introduce to learners examples with downgraders and upgraders
and discuss with learners their impact on the hearer:
1. / . [You somewhat let me down.]
2. (). [You behaved not very well.]
3. (). [You came a little late.]
4. / . [You really let me down.]
5. (). [You terribly disappointed me.]
6. ! [This is a real nightmare!]
Instructors can then provide descriptions of situations which require negotiating a
complaint. Such interactions can be designed with reference to cultural values, such as
friendship, money, time, legal obligations, and breaking rules. Learners can work in pairs
to negotiate a problem described in a situation. Instructors should evaluate their reactions
at the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels, and they should address some
problematic areas in learners reactions. For example, learners might be asked to act out
the following situations:

274
Situation 1.
, . ,
, .
. :
[You asked your friend, Tania, to return a book for you to the library because you
were in a hurry to catch the bus. Unfortunately, she forgot to do it and returned
the book to the library only one month later. Now, you need to pay a fine in the
library. You see Tania and say to her:]
Situation 2. .
, ,
. :
[You worked a lot on your project in mathematics. Unfortunately, you received a
C, and you think that you deserved a better grade. You approach your professor
after class, and you say to him:]
Situation 3.
, .
, . :
[On a bus, a young man put his bag of groceries next to you and stained your shirt
with milk that was leaking from the bag. He did not apologize although he noticed
it. You say to him:]
Exercises like these should prepare learners to negotiate a problem with friends, a noisy
neighbor, unfamiliar males and females in everyday-life encounters, and authority figures
at a university in Russian culture. Language instructors should sensitize learners to

275
sociocultural norms and linguistic politeness in Russian so that they can successfully
negotiate with Russian native speakers. It appears that classroom instructions should
provide more sociocultural contexts so that the L2 learners can improve their pragmatic
competence at the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic levels, and, as a result, become
better negotiators in a complaint situation in the target language community.
5.6. Suggestions for Future Research
The present study has explored several issues related to performance and
perception of direct complaints in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics: The
taxonomy of speech act set of American speakers, Russian native speakers, and L2
learners; the linguistic politeness in all three language groups; the effects of gender and
proficiency level on performance of direct complaints, the latter in the case of learners.
The results of the present study revealed several areas to explore in future
research that should be based on a larger number of participants in each language group.
A promising area of future research concerns the methodology itself. A future empirical
study on direct complaints should expand the present methodology by employing role-
plays or written responses to scenarios featuring complaints. Oral and written responses
would allow comparing both methods to see whether they produce similar results among
native and non-native speakers.
Another promising research area is the effect of gender on the performance of
direct complaints. In the present study, only the gender of the speaker was considered,
while the gender of the hearer (i.e., of the imaginary hearer in each scenario) was not
taken into consideration. Although each scenario was designed in such a way that the
276
participants responded to a male and female hearer for moderate and severe offenses in
each type of social distance, the hearers gender was not included in the final analysis in
order to avoid undesired complexity of the study. Therefore, gender of the speaker and of
the hearer opens an important agenda for future research on direct complaints.
Finally, the present study explored pragmatic competence of students with a study
abroad experience. In the future research, their performances should be compared with
those of students who did not participate in the study abroad program but are at the
same proficiency levels. Such comparison would indicate the benefits and limitations of
study abroad and domestic programs, which would inform language instructors about
potential difficulties related to each program in the area of pragmatics. This knowledge
would help language educators to design better articulated curricula for learners at the
intermediate and advanced levels that aim to develop and enhance their acquisition of
pragmatics at the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatics levels. Curricula that include
teaching pragmatics have the potential to improve learners pragmatic competence so that
the learners become better negotiators with native speakers in everyday- life situations.
277
References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1999). ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines C Speaking. Revised 1999. Available from
http://www.actfl.org/files/public/Guidelinesspeak.pdf.
Arent, R. (1996). Sociopragmatic decisions regarding complaints by Chinese learners and
NSs of American English. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 125-147.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University William James
lectureship 1955. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Beebe, L. M & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written
questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance.
In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to
communication in a second language (pp. 65-86). Berlin and New York: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Bergelson, M. (2003). Russian cultural values and workplace communication styles.
Communication studies 2003: Modern anthology, 97-112. Retrieved July 12,
2008, from http://www.ffl.msu.ru/staff/mbergelson/7.doc.
Berger, T. (2006). Sprachliche Konzepte von Hoflichkeit in den slavischen Sprachen im
Vergleich mit ihren westeuropaischen Aquivalenten. Tubingen, 12-13 Mai 2006.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different.
Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

278
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Discourse pragmatics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as
social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, (Vol. 2,
pp. 38-63). London: SAGE Publications.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and Kasper, G (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics:
Requests and apologies. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., and E. Olshtain. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and
pragmatic failure. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 47-61.
Blum-Kulka, S., and E. Olshtain. (1994). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study
of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Bonikowska, M. (1988). The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 169-181.
Boxer, D. (1993a). Complaining and commiserating: Exploring gender issues. Text,
13(3), 371-395.
Boxer, D. (1993b). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints.
Journal of pragmatics, 19(2), 103-125.
Boxer, D. (1993c). Complaining and commiserating: A speech act view of solidarity in
spoken American English. New York: Peter Lang.
Boxer, D. (1996). Ethnographic interviewing as a research tool in speech act analysis:
The case of complaints. In S. M. Grass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across
cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, (pp. 217-239).
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

279
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1999). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. In A.
Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader, (pp. 321-335). London
and New York: Routledge.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: University Press.
Cohen, A. (1996a). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass and J.
Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a
second language, (pp. 21-43). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. McKay and N. Hornberger (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics and language teaching, (pp. 383-415). Cambridge: CUP.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1994). Researching the production of second-language
speech acts. In E. Tarone, S. M. Gass & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Research
methodology in second language acquisition, (pp. 143-156). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crystal, D. (1985). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 2nd edition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Depta, K. (1999). Wzorzec gatunkowy skargi. Stylistyka, 8, 133-145.
Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London and New York:
Longman.
Frank, V. M. (2002). The interlanguage pragmatic competence of classroom-based
learners of Russian: Ponimaesh, k tebe takoe delo (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr PA.

280
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
Fraser, B, Rintell, E. & Walters, J. (1980). An approach to conducting research on the
acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. In D. Larsen-Freeman
(Eds.), Discourse analysis (pp. 75-81). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Gershenson, O. (2003). Misunderstanding between Israelis and Soviet immigrants:
Linguistic and cultural factors. Multilingua, 22, 275-290.
Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), (1975).
Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic
Press.
Goddard, C. & Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Discourse and culture. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction: Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary
introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 231-257). London: SAGE Publications.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York:
Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1999). On face-work: An analysis o ritual elements in social interaction. In
A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 306-320). London
and New York: Routledge.
Hoffman, E. (1990). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. New York:
Penguin Books.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universal
linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 82, 223-248.

281
Jakubowska, E. (1999). Cross-cultural dimensions of politeness in the case of Polish and
English. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu lskiego.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics,
2, 193-218.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, Second Language teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved July 14,
2008, from http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/networks/NW06/default.html.
Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.) Learning Foreign and
Second Languages: Perspectives in Research and Scholarship (pp. 183-208).
New York: Modern Language Association of America.
Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.). (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics. New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G. & Roever, C. (2005). Pragmatics in second language learning. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 317-
334). New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Mahwah.
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language.
Blackwell Publishing.
Kartalova, Y. B. (1996). Cross-cultural differences in American and Russian general
conventions of communication. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language
Learning, Monograph series, 7, 71-96. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as an International Language.

282
Kinginger, C. (2011). Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 31, 58-73.
Kecskes, I. (2004). Editorial: Lexical merging, conceptual blending, and cultural
crossing. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 1-26.
Kozlova, I. (2004). Can you complain? Cross-cultural comparison of indirect complaints
in Russian and American English. Prospect, 19(1) April, 84-105.
Kraft, B. & Geluykens, R. (2002). Complaining in French L1 and L2: A cross-linguistic
investigation. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2, 227-242.
Kraft, B. & Geluykens, R. (2007). Cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage English.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your ps and qs. In C. Corum, T.
Cedric Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting
of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Malinowski, B. (1999). On phatic communion. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.),
The discourse reader (pp. 302-305). London and New York: Routledge.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: Face revised and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486.
Marcjanik, M. (1997). Polska grzeczno jzykowa. Kielce: WSP.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena
in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.

283
Mills, M. H. (1991). The performance force of the interrogative in colloquial Russian:
From direct to indirect speech acts. Slavic and East European Journal, 35(1), 98-
114.
Mills, M. H. (1992). Conventionalized politeness in Russian requests: A pragmatic view
of indirectness. Russian Linguistics, 16, 65-78.
Murthy, B. & Neu, J. (1996). My grades too low: The speech act set of complaining. In
S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to
communication in a second language (pp. 191-216). Berlin and New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Morris, C. W. (1939). Foundations of the theory of signs. In International Encyclopedia
of Unified Science (Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-59). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Ogiermann, E. (2009a). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of
English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5,
189-216.
Ogiermann, E. (2009b). On apologizing in negative and positive politeness cultures.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-Linguistic Influence. In C. J. Doughty, and M. Long (Eds.), The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 436-486). London: Blackwell
Publishing.
Olshtain E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of
communicative competence. Language Testing, 16-30.
Olshtain E. & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech-act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd
284
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers.
Olshtain E., & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among
native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-
Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985
international pragmatics conference (pp.195-208). Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Olshtain E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of
complaining. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics
(pp. 108-122). New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ouellette, M. A. (2001). Thats too bad: Hedges and indirect complaints in troubles-
talk narrative. Working papers in Educational Linguistics, 17(1-2), 107-126.
Owen, J.S. (2001). Interlanguage pragmatics in Russian: A study of the effects of study
abroad and proficiency levels of request strategies (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA.
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 2(3), 209-230.
Rathmayr, R. (1994). Pragmatische and sprachlich konzeptualisierte Characteristika
russicher direktiver Sprechakte. In H. R. Mehlig (Ed.), Slavistische Linguistik
1993: Referate des XIX. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens (pp. 251-278).
Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Rathmayr, R. (1996). Sprachliche Hoflichkeit. Am Beispiel expliziter und impliziter
Hoflichkeit im Russischen. In W. Girke (Ed.), Slavistische Linguistik 1995:

285
Referate des XXI. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens (pp. 362-391).
Munchen: Verlag Otto Sagner.
Ries, N. (1991). The power of negative thinking: Russian talk and the reproduction of
mindset, worldview, and society. The Anthropology of East Europe Review,
10(2), 38-53.
Rintell, E. M. & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into
method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-272). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(2), 261-277.
Schaefer, E. (1982). An analysis of the discourse and syntax of oral complaints in
English (Unpublished masters thesis). University of California, Los Angeles,
CA.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning, and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper
and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, X (3), 209-231.

286
Shardakova, M. (2009). Intercultural pragmatics of the apology: How Americans acquire
sociolinguistic competence in Russian. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag Dr. Muller.
Schmidt, R. W. & Richards, J. C. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning.
Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 129-157.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Introduction: Language, culture and rapport management. In
H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk
across cultures (pp. 1-8). London, New York: Continuum.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusals and complaint: A comparison of native and
non-native English speakers production. TESL 523 Second Language
Acquisition. Washington, DC: American University.
Tarasova, Y. (1999). On solidarity strategies used by the speakers of English and Russian
in sociable talk. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning,
Monograph series, 9, 51-68. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, Division of English as an International Language.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Tran, G. (2002). Pragmatic transfer and discourse transfer in complaining. Melbourne
Papers in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 71-98.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies.
Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985a). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts.
Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.

287
Wierzbicka, A. (1985b). A semantic metalanguage for a cross-cultural comparison of
speech acts and speech genres. Language in Society, 14, 491-514.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction.
Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolfson, N. (1988). The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J.
Fine (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp.55-
83). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Russian Sources
, . . , . . (1978). :
-. 2-, . :
, . . , . . (1997). (
). : .
, . (1994). :
. , 53-58.
, . (1998).
? In Freidhof, G. Kusse, H.,
& Schindler, F. (Eds.), Slavische Sprachwissenschaft und Interdisziplinaritat (1st
ed.), 4, 35-50.
, . . (1997). : -
. Zeitschrift fur Slavische Philologie,
56(2), 271-301.
288
, . . , . (.) (1993). .
- . : .
, . . (2001). . 2-e
, . : .
, . ., , . ., , . (1998).
. : .
, . . (2007). .
In
. (I-II
) (pp. 20-56). o .
P .
, . . (1982). :
. : P .
, . . (1989). . :
, . . , . . (1992). : -
. , 2- , . :
, . . (2009). .
. :
.
289
Appendix A. Scenarios for the Discourse Completion Questionnaire (in English and
Russian)
Please read aloud each scenario and respond spontaneously to the following situations
(voice your responses into the tape recorder). Please do your best to react as you would
do in real life. You may say nothing if in a real life situation you would not respond.
, , (,
, ). , ,
, .
Do not describe what you would say, instead speak as if the person is next to you.
, .
, ().
1. You have not talked to your friend for a few months because you started your
study at a university in another city, and you were very busy. It is New Year, and
you decided to call him. You say to him:
,
.
, .
:
2. You are very busy because you are studying for an exam for tomorrow. You see
that your roommate is going to the grocery store, and you need some ham and
cheese. You say to him:
(If you decided not to say anything, please explain why)
290
, .
, ,
. :
( , , , .)
3. Ann, your friend, borrowed a library book from you that was checked out in your
name. She returns it to you late, and now you have to pay the fine in the library.
You say to her:
,
. ,
. :
( , , , .)
4. You have been working together with your friend Boris on a project for your
statistics class, which is due tomorrow. Each time, your friend comes to the
meeting late. Today, you have been waiting for him for over 30 minutes. Now, in
order to finish it, you will be late for your evening part-time job. Finally, he is
there. You see him and say:

, .
. 30 ()
, , -
. , , :
( , , , .)
291
5. You lent your friend money that she was supposed to return at the beginning of
this month. It is already the end of the month, and Sarah has not returned the
money yet. You need your money back because you need to pay the rent for your
apartment. You see her and say:
.
. ,
. ,
. :
( , , , .)
6. You have already talked a few times to Andrew, your friend and roommate, about
taking care of the kitchen that you share with him in the dormitory apartment.
Today, he again left a pile of dirty dishes in the sink although it was his turn to
take care of the kitchen. You see Andrew and say:
,
, .
,
. :
( , , , .)
7. You have a new neighbor next door in the dormitory. You dont know him yet.
Since he moved in five days ago, he has been listening to loud music every night.
You already overslept once, and you were late for work. Today, you cannot sleep
because the music is loud again. It is already midnight, and you have a terrible
headache. You go to your neighbor and say:
292
,
. .
, .
- .
, . ,
. :
( , , , .)
8. It is Christmas time. You are in a grocery store waiting in a line for over 30
minutes. A woman cuts a line in the front of you although she clearly saw you.
You say to her:
.
30 () . -
, , .
:
( , , , .)
9. You are in a taxi driving from the airport to your hotel. You do not know the city,
but, based on the information from the hotel receptionist, the taxi would cost you
no more than 30 dollars. When you arrive at the hotel, the taxi driver is asking
you for almost 70 dollars. You say to him:
. ,
,
293
, 900 () . ,
2000 ( ) . :
( , , , .)
10. In one hour, you are having a job interview. Now, you are entering the subway
station. At that moment, a woman also rushes to the entrance and spills coffee on
your new white shirt. You say to her:
. .
, - , ,
. :
( , , , .)
11. Your English professor included material on the final oral exam that was not
covered in the class, and, as a result, you got a low grade on the exam, which
caused you to receive a C instead of a B as a final grade. You are not satisfied
with your grade, and you believe that you deserve a better one. You are coming to
the professor during his office hours and you say to him:
-
, .
, .
, .
:
( , , , .)
294
12. Your professor agreed to meet you 30 minutes before the class starts in order to
discuss some preliminary ideas about your masters thesis. You were waiting for
him, but, unfortunately, he did not come. After class, you approach your professor
and say:
-
30 ,
. , ,
, . :
( , , , .)
13. You provide translation services to finance your studies at the university. This
month, you hired Vania, another student, because you got a large project to
translate. Unfortunately, Vania didnt return his part of the translation to you on
time. As a result, you were not able to finish the project on time. The client got
angry with you, and has decided not to use your services anymore. You see John
and you say:
.
, ,
. ,
.

. :
( , , , .)
14. You hired a tutor to help you with mathematics. He knows the subject very well,
but he covers the material too fast. You already asked him to do less during each
295
meeting. Today, you again do not understand his explanation because of the
amount of material covered. At the end of the tutoring session, you say to him:
, .
, .
, .
- .
:
( , , , .)
15. Irina, your best friend invited you to her birthday party on Saturday afternoon.
Unfortunately, you have to go to work on Saturday afternoon because one of your
coworkers got sick. You call your friend and say:
.
, , .
:
296
Appendix B. Assessment Questionnaire
Assessment Questionnaire for American Speakers of English
Please circle the answer that you chose
I. Ann, your friend, borrowed a library book from you that was checked out
in your name. She returns it to you late, and now you have to pay the fine.
1. How serious is the situation?
a) very serious b) somewhat serious c) not serious at all
2. Do you need to complain?
a) absolutely b) yes c) not really
After you answer the last question, please tell me
II. How do you evaluate the method of data collection? How did you feel
while completing the oral tasks?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
297
Appendix C. Assessment Questionnaire for Russian Speakers
, , ,
I. ,
. ,
, c
1. ?
a) b) c)
2. ?
a) b) c)
II. , ,
?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
298
Appendix D. Participant Consent Form
Participant Consent Form for an Empirical Research Project for American
Speakers of English and American Learners of Russian
Project: Cross-Cultural Study on Native and Non-Native Behavior in Everyday-

Life Communicative Situations
Researcher: Beata Moskala-Gallaher
Bryn Mawr College Department of Russian
101 N. Merion Ave.
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
484-888-9462
To the Participant:
You are invited to take part in a research project conducted by Beata Moskala-Gallaher, a
graduate student, under supervision of Professor Dan Davidson at Bryn Mawr College.
My purpose of this cross-cultural study is to better understand linguistic and cultural

behavior of American native speakers of English, Russian native speakers and American
learners of Russian in communicative situations related to everyday life. I am
particularly interested in exploring what language choices speakers in these three
language groups make in order to sound polite while showing their disappointment in
different sociocultural contexts.
As a participant in the study, you will be asked to voice your responses to 15 scenarios in
the discourse completion questionnaire into a digital recorder, and to fill out an
assessment questionnaire for most of the scenarios, and a demographic survey. To do so,
you will be left alone in the classroom after I show you how operate the tape recorder. To
complete the task (to record your answers and to fill out the assessment questionnaire),
you may need 30-40 minutes.
The tape with your recording and the questionnaire will be labeled with your name, but
they will be used only for purpose of this study. The recording on the tape will be
destroyed after the material is transcribed by me. The information obtained from you in
299
the assessment questionnaire and the demographic survey will be kept strictly
confidential, and it will be viewed only by me. The transcribed data of your recording
will be evaluated by me and by two native speakers of Russian; however, your name will
not be disclosed in any way to the evaluators. In any oral or written presentation of the
findings your real name will not be used in order to protect your privacy. If I wish to
quote some of your responses in my dissertation or in any subsequently published
materials, I will not use your real name, but a fictional name so that your identity cannot
be ascertained. The transcribed material will be stored on a CD and kept in a locked
cabinet in my home office. Your real name will not appear on the transcribed material
and assessment questionnaires, which will be indentified by a record number and a
fictional name. The transcribed material and assessment questionnaires will be stored for
two years upon completion the study and then destroyed.
Your participation in the study is voluntary, and you can withdraw from the project at any
time. There is no physical or emotional risk involved in the study. Your participation in
the study will not affect your grades at your university. Upon completion of the study,
you will receive $10 (US) or 300 rubles, if you participate in the study in Russia.
If you have any questions regarding the research, please contact me at any time at 484-
888-9462 or at [email protected]. If you have any questions about your rights
as a research participant, please contact Dr. Leslie Alexander, Chair of the IRB at Bryn
Mawr College, at 610-520-2635 or at [email protected]
.
---------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Signature of the researcher and date
Participants Authorization
I have read and I understand the consent form. I understand the subject, the purpose and
the methods of the study, and, I agree to participate voluntarily in this study. Any
questions related to the research were answered by the researcher, Beata Moskala-
Gallaher, or by the researchers assistant (in Moscow) to my satisfaction. I understand
300
that I may withdraw from the research at any time. I will receive a copy of this consent
form.
----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
-participants signature date
Acknowledgment of the Payment
My signature below indicates that I have accepted payment of $10 (US) or 300 rubles (if
you are in Russia) for the participation in the study.
_________________________________
________________________________
participants signature date

301
Appendix E. Participant Consent Form for an Empirical Research Project for

Russian speakers
: -

101 .
, , 19010
484-888-9462 ()
,
- .

,
, ,
, .
,

.
, ,
,
, ,
. , ,
30-40 .
,
. , ,
, .
, .
,
. 300
.
,
484-888-9462
[email protected]
302
,
,
, 610-520-2635
[email protected]
__________________________________

() () .
, , () ,
. ,
, () . ,
.
.
_______________________________________________________
, ,
_______________________________ _______________________
, () 300
.
_______________________________ ________________________

303
Appendix F. Demographic Survey
Demographic Survey for American Speakers of English and American Learners

of Russian
Please answer the following questions about yourself. If you have a few answers
given, please circle the one you chose.
Please write here your name and how I can reach you:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
1. Your gender
Male Female
2. Your age _____________________
3. In what country were you born? (If in the USA, in what state)
_________________________ ___________________
4. What is your native language? ______________________
5. What are you studying at the university? In what department? What year?
__________________________ ___________________ __________
6. Have you studied any other languages? If yes, where, what language(s), and how
long
at home ____ language(s)_________________________how long_________
at school ____ language(s)_________________________how long_________
abroad ____ language(s) ________________________how long_________

304
Appendix G. Demographic Survey for Russian Speakers
, , .
, , , ,
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
1. ? ______________________________
2. ? _______________________________
3. ? _______________________________
4. ?
(, , ,
)
________________________________________________________________________
5. ? ?
_____________________________ _____________
6. - ?
, , ?
_____ () ____________________________ ______
_____ () ____________________________ ______
_____ () _____________________________ ______

305
Appendix H. Evaluation Form (for two Native Speakers of Russian)
You will be asked to evaluate learners responses to 12 scenarios featuring
complaints. Please do not pay attention to learners grammatical mistakes. Please
evaluate the learners responses according to the following criteria:
1. How would you rate the participants response in this situation?
1) very polite 2) polite 3) not very polite 3) rude 4) aggressive
2. Is the students response appropriate according to socio-cultural norms in Russian
culture?
a) yes b) no
If you said yes in 2, please explain why.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
__________________
3. Is the students response appropriate in terms of Russian language norms?
a) yes b) no
If you said no in 3, please explain why.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________
306
Appendix I. Evaluation Form in Russian. .
, , , ,
, ..).
, , , .
1. ?
) ) ) ) )
2. -
b) )
, , , .
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. ?
) )
, , , .
307
Appendix J. Owens (2001) Taxonomy of Directness in Request, and Modified
Taxonomy of Directness in Remedy in Russian Native and Non-Native Data in the
Present Study
Owens Taxonomy of Directness in Requests Modified Taxonomy of Directness

in the Remedy in the Present Study
I. Direct Request Strategies

I. Direct Strategies
1. Commands (Imperative and
1. Commands (Imperative)
Modified Imperative)
2. Performative verbs 2. Performative verbs and
3. Want-statement as direct strategy Want-statement as direct
strategy
4. Obligation, hearer
3. Obligation, hearer
4. Obligation, hearer and
speaker
5. Declarative statements and
conditional sentences for
possible events
II. Indirect Strategies II. Indirect Strategies
A. Hearer-oriented Strategies (Least A. Hearer-oriented Strategies
Indirect) 6. Questions with the negative

particle and the modal
5. Preparatory condition for hearer
verb in the past tense
6. Suggestory formula 7. Questions with the negative
particle and the modal
verb in the present
tense
8. Questions with the modal
verb without the
negative particle
308
9. Suggestory formula with

lets:
10. Interrogatives
11. Conditional sentences (if +
verb in the past tense)
B. Speaker-oriented Strategies
12. Preparatory conditions and
7. Needs
advice phrasing
8. Wishes
13. The speakers wishes
9. Preparatory condition for speaker
14. Interrogatives
10. Advice phrasing
C. Speaker and hearer-oriented
C. Unspecified Agent-oriented Strategies
15. Questions with and without
11. General Obligation Statement
the modal verb in the
12. General Preparatory Conditions first person plural
D. Unspecified Agent-oriented
13. Information Questions
Strategies
14. Context-Dependent Statements (Owen,
16. General preparatory
2001: 246)
conditions and general
obligation statements
III. Speakers non-negotiable
solution to the problem - Direct
Strategies
17. Declarative Sentences (with
the subjects I)
309
Appendix K. Modified Taxonomy of Directness in Remedy in Russian Native and
Non-Native Data with Examples
I. Direct Request Strategies
1. Commands (Imperative with and without the politeness marker, ,
please, and with the politeness marker () / , Be good!,
(appealing to the hearers kindness), and modified imperative structures with
(), it is not allowed, and , it is needed. This category also
encompasses , let, + the imperative, and , let, + the imperfective
infinitive.
(Loud Music): !
(Dirty Dishes): !
(Paying Rent): !
(Job Interview): !
(Loud Music): ?
2. Performative verbs: I am asking you to do this.
and Want-statement as direct strategy: I want you to do this / I would like you
to do this / I need you to do this.
(Paying Rent): .
(Bad Grade): -
(Tutor):
3. Obligation, hearer: , ,
310
(Translation Services): -
(Library Fee): .
4. Obligation, hearer and speaker
(Late for Project):
5. Declarative statements and conditional sentences for possible events
(Library Fee): , .
(Late for Project):
- .
II. Indirect Strategies
A. Hearer-oriented Strategies (Least Indirect)
1. Questions with the negative particle and the modal verb in the past
tense
(Loud Music):
- .
2. Questions with the negative particle and the modal verb in the present
tense
(Loud Music): ?
3. Questions with the modal verb without the negative particle
4. Suggestory formula with lets:
(Bad Grade): - ?
5. Interrogative with the question words when, what, how, the verb to be.
311
(Paying Rent): ?
6. Conditional sentences (if + verb in the past tense):
(Library Fee): ,
1. Preparatory conditions with the modal verbs with the subject in the first
person singular and in the dative, and advice phrasing:
(Bad Grade): - - ?
(Missed Meeting): -
(Job Interview): ?
2. The speakers wishes
(Taxi Fee): .
3. Interrogatives with the question words when, what, how, and the verb to be:
(Missed Meeting): - ?
C. Speaker and hearer-oriented
1. Questions with and without the modal verb in the first person plural
(Missed Meeting): ?
(Missed Meeting): ?
D. Unspecified Agent-oriented Strategies (Most Indirect)
1. General preparatory conditions with + the infinitive and general obligation
statements with + the infinitive
(Bad Grade): - : ?
312
(Tutor): :
III. Speakers non-negotiable solution to the problem - Direct Strategies
(declarative sentences)
1. Declarative Sentences (with the subjects I)
(Library Fine):
(Translation Services): !
313
Appendix L. Summary of the Main Results about the Number of Moves for Groups
and Gender by Social Distance and Social Power

P- Parameter P- P-VALUE
Parameter VALUE Estimate VALUE
Estimate
Moves f/s 1.916 <0.0001 0.4271 0.3458 0.4490
Moves s/s 0.4349 0.0005 -0.8189 0.6055 0.0084
Moves p/l 2.308 <0.0001 0.5988 0.1801 0.1518
Moves h/h 0.7682 0.0002 -.8430 0.4123 0.0137
Moves ALL 1.897 <0.0001 0.3624 0.3391 0.0602

314
Appendix M. Calculated Average Numbers of Moves for Groups and Genders by
Social Distance and Social Power
Table 1
Calculated Average Number of Moves for Interactions with Friends

Mean L'Beta
Group L2 6.4906 6.4906 0.3681 1 310.99 <.0001
Group RS 4.5748 4.5748 0.2534 1 325.86 <.0001
Gender F 5.7462 5.7462 0.3347 1 294.69 <.0001
Gender M 5.3192 5.3192 0.3009 1 312.51 <.0001
Note. Gr = Group; Gen = Gender; Std Err = Standard Error; ChiSq = Chi-Square
Table 2
Calculated Average Number of Moves for Interactions with Strangers

Mean L'Beta
Group*gender L2 F 5.9659 5.9659 0.3461 1 297.07 <.0001
Group*gender L2 M 4.7891 4.7891 0.311 1 237.16 <.0001
Group*gender RS F 3.5343 3.5343 0.3617 1 95.49 <.0001
Group*gender RS M 4.3532 4.3532 0.3633 1 143.58 <.0001
Table 3
Calculated Average Number of Moves for Interactions with Professors

Mean L'Beta
Group L2 6.5242 6.5242 0.3526 1 342.3 <.0001
Group RS 4.2164 4.2164 0.2837 1 220.87 <.0001
gender F 5.6697 5.6697 0.3881 1 213.4 <.0001
gender M 5.0709 5.0709 0.2205 1 528.84 <.0001
315
Table 4
Calculated Average Number of Moves for Interactions with Hired Persons
Effect Gr Gen Estimate Std Err DF ChiSq Pr > ChiSq

Mean L'Beta
Group*gender AL F 7.361 7.361 0.7054 1 108.88 <.0001
Group*gender AL M 5.7578 5.7578 0.1825 1 995.77 <.0001
Group*gender RS F 4.1466 4.1466 0.3781 1 120.29 <.0001
Group*gender RS M 4.9897 4.9897 0.4588 1 118.28 <.0001
Table 5
Calculated Average Number of Moves for All Interactions

Mean L'Beta
Group AL 6.2075 6.2075 0.2892 1 460.84 <.0001
Group RS 4.3108 4.3108 0.2529 1 290.51 <.0001
gender F 5.4404 5.4404 0.3019 1 324.76 <.0001
gender M 5.0779 5.0779 0.2299 1 487.99 <.0001

The Speech Act of Complaint in English and in Russian and Its Emergence in The Pragmatic Competence of Adult American Learners of Russian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Speech Act of Complaint in English and in Russian and Its Emergence in The Pragmatic Competence of Adult American Learners of Russian

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Speech Act of Complaint in English and in Russian and Its Emergence in The Pragmatic Competence of Adult American Learners of Russian

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Submitted to the Faculty of Bryn Mawr College

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

complaints by American native speakers of English (ASs), Russian native speakers

perception and performance of direct complaints. Within a framework of cross-cultural

Russians and between L2 learners and RSs in complaint situations.

The data were elicited through a combination of oral open-ended discourse

completion questionnaires (DCQ) and an assessment questionnaire. There were 30 ASs,

modification for directness in requests in Russian.

levels in terms of socio-cultural constraints. L2 learners approximated strategy selection

sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels. However, L2 learners also used strategies

learners cross-cultural awareness and pragmatic competence will help L2 learners to

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Dan Davidson, my academic

continued assistance throughout my time in graduate school. I am very grateful to the

conduct my research at Herzen State Pedagogical University in St. Petersburg, Russia. I

goes to my husband for his encouragement and help.

1.1.Pragmatic Competence: A Speech Act of Complaint 12

1.2. Purpose of This Study: Research Questions 15

1.4. Definition of Terms 17

1.4.2. Pragmalinguistics versus Sociopragmatics 18

1.4.3. Speech Acts 18

1.4.4. Direct versus Indirect Speech Acts 19

1.4.5. Politeness Theory 19

1.4.6. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics 20

1.4.7. Interlanguage Pragmatics and Language Transfer 20

1.5. Limitations of This Study 21

1.6. Significance of This Study 22

1.6.1. Contributing to the Field of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Pragmatics 22

1.6.2. Establishing the Taxonomy of the Speech Act Set of Direct

1.6.3. Comparing Native and Non-Native Performance of Direct Complaint 25

1.6.4. Pedagogical Implications 25

Chapter 2: The Literature Review 27

2.1. Chapter Overview 27

2.2. Pragmatics: Pragmalinguistics and Sociopragmatics 27

2.3. Speech Acts 30

2.3.1. Indirect Speech Acts 32

2.3.2. Culture-Specific Characteristics of Speech Acts 35

2.4. Politeness Theory 38

2.4.1. Counterevidence to the Universality of the Politeness Theory 42

2.5. Pragmatic Competence vs. Pragmatic Failure 47

2.6. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics 49

2.7. Interlanguage Pragmatics and Pragmatic Transfer 51

2.8. The Speech Act of Complaint 53

2.8.1. Classification of Complaints 54

2.8.2. Defining Complaints 55

2.8.2.1. Direct Complaints 58

2.8.2.2. Indirect Complaints 58

2.8.3. The Speech Act Set of Direct Complaints 60

2.8.3.1. Realization Patterns of Direct Complaints based on the Severity of Complaint

2.9. Empirical Studies on Direct Complaints 63

2.9.1. Previous Cross-Cultural Studies on Direct Complaints 63

2.9.2. Interlanguage Studies on Direct Complaints 65

Chapter 3: Methodology and Data Collection 73

3.1. Chapter Overview 73

3.2. Data Collection Methods in Speech Acts Studies 73

3.3. Study Design 80